Capitalism vs Collectivism- whats the real debate?

Double posting.

 

Well, it looks good although their website doesn't provide anything relating to the organizational structure or the requirements associated with becoming a member-worker. Ask your son about stock shares. If people other than member-workers can buy shares, or if anyone may buy and own more than one share, it isn't a WSDE even if it is a "worker co-op". ESOPs generally follow that description, and they aren't WSDEs although they may find it easier to convert to a WSDE than a standard top-down corporation would.

In case you're interested, the following article mentions PV Squared and it presents answers to questions you have asked me before: "why can't anybody form a WSDE if they want to, just as easily as forming any corporation?"
http://geo.coop/node/631

 

You're describing a very poorly run operation that is headed for failure. But you think it is how it has to be. The most successful WSDEs are nothing like that. Want a name to check into?

Your freedom? Your "freedom" is that in order to survive, in order to participate in society, you have to enter the market to buy things and to sell the products of your labor. It wasn't so different under feudalism. Privacy doesn't change either. Your ghost stories could scare some people though.

 

No.
!!!!!

It is producing no such thing.

Wealth is unchanged by inflation. Price is.

It's producing price disparity.

As money is worth less, goods cost more money. Not more labour, just more money.
A brick takes the same effort to make no matter what the exchange rate, the number of bricks I own is the same no matter how many £ are printed.

Which means the amount of goods a rich person has more than a poor person is being priced higher. No more goods are being produced due to inflation. No one has anything more.
The £ price of those goods is higher. But the value of them is the same.

Rich isn't getting richer. Poor isn't getting poorer.
We measure wealth in £.
£ isn't the wealth itself. It's something you trade for wealth.

In order for the rich to be getting richer and the poor be getting poorer, the cost of labour must be reduced. Not the price of the pound.

Those with assests to trade must be able to get more labour for less assets.


Because of inflation my house price and the £ value of my stocks and shares have gone up measured in £. But what else I can buy with a £ has gone up also. So no change to my wealth. Which is still 1 house and x many shares.

Price vs value.

 

Wealth is determined by the value of property one owns.
The difference occurs as a result of HOW people manage their money.
Take a number of individuals earning exactly the same income, some live pay check to pay check, spending all or more than they earn while others save a portion of their income in a bank account and still others invest a portion of their income in stocks or some higher risk/greater reward form of investment. Over time the results of their management of their income can produce greatly differing wealth magnified by how inflation affected the value of their spending produced debt/investments.
0 1 2 3
0 2 4 6
0 4 8 12
0 8 16 24
0 16 32 48

NINO "Nothing In Nothing Out"

 

Wealth is commonly measured in the $ value of your property but it is determined by the value you place on it.





In a high inflation economy, the worker who did not save got most value for his labours.
He cashed out, while his cash was worth most.

Cash is not the endgame. Spent cash is.
You haven't finished until you've spent it.


If we define wealth as assets, do happy memories count as assets?
Do the training courses he took, or bought his children and so on.

Wealth is subjective.

Certainly I agree that two people can earn the same money in life and end up with very different financial assets at the end depending on what it is they value more.
Would I go as far as to intrinsically judge the value of one life style vs another? No.

 

What a crock. The difference occurs as a result of how much money is inherited and how well one uses it to take advantage of others more often than not.

 

Have you given thought on enrolling in an anger management class?

 

I used to teach them.

 

It is my experience....most workers do not like risk. They won't take risk. They want guaranteed income... so how can they control means of production in a competitive market without risk? I have had employees that were dawg on good workers. If you tried to get them to step up and take risk??? Nothing doing. They settle for a wage. So with a guaranteed income, that's all you get until you are no longer needed. In Capitalism, risk is rewarded. When Socialism fails due to lack of efficiency....enter Communism.

 

I'll go with that.
Usually I'm self employed.

But I've just spent the last 6 months in a minimum wage job.
It's been an absolute holiday.
I haven't worried about money once. Stress free holiday.

 

A do as I say, not as I do class then?

 

"Dawg on"?
Never mind.

These are your errors here:
1) Don't take my word for it. Look into some of the many existing WSDEs and find out. How does on last for 60 years competing successfully with standard top-down corporations and grow as big as Mondragon has? Look into it.

2) Find a WSDE that failed due to lack of efficiency.
And you're saying that communism is a system that would be imposed on society by force. Ignoring that such a statement reveals a tragic lack of basic knowledge of what communism is, tell me who would impose it on whom in your speculative vision here. If you can't say who would impose it on whom, then you can't even consider it may happen in spite of the fundamental lack of basic knowledge which I mentioned.

Then you might correct your own error by defining "communist society" for me. What do you mean by it?

 

As you say Communism has never existed but totalitarian regimmes have used it's theory to gain control and the still do and attempt to.
I believe I know what you are talking about "WSDE'S" and I believe they have been successful in some cases. I would like to know who exactly who are the risk takers there and how they are compensated. (I am foreign to large collectives as I have always stayd away from them)

 

No, the history is no mystery, but you need to name "regimes" to be clear as to what you mean. The history is that some right wing regimes, like Mussolini's and Hitler's, have lied as the extreme right does to appeal deceptively to the people, only to implement their own right wing totalitarian rule once they get the people's support with their lies. Other efforts started out honestly, like the communist parties in Russia and China, but were unable to preserve "purity" after coming to power.

It is the member-workers, of course, who take the risks, and they are compensated only with successful operation of a co-op if they beat the odds. Many on the right seem to have great trouble accepting the idea that anyone could ever agree to take a risk without a great reward of riches and power awaiting them upon their success. But the member-workers of WSDEs benefit from greater job security, better income, a promise of better retirement funding, and approval of the community because of their contribution to the community in the form of service tailored to the needs, non-polluting production, honest operation, and an end to all the evils of the system which people are currently opposing and protesting.

 

never successful really. any capitalist company is free to move toward greater worker participation and millions have to one degree or another but the result after 100's of years have always been negative. Kode is a simple marxist with one of 1000 schemes the libmarxists have to subvert freedom and capitalism.