Capitalism doesn't and IS NOT working, it's destructive and creatives poor social incentives

I live a great life due to capitalism, why would I want to change that?

2nd

a reply to: freakwars

Why didn't the Socialist Party USA build a state of the art factory in the USA?

If socialism is better than capitalism, that factory would have done well and made enough profit to build another factory et cetera.

Socialism is the political equivalent of the Zombie Plague.

a reply to: sirhumperdink

that list isn't very good, imho. it seems to be primarily about stock ownership, which isn't what socialists are generally talking about with worker ownership of the means of production. Mondragon fits the definition better because it includes cooperative councils which allow the workers to have a direct voice in the running of the companies in addition to have technical ownership of the company.

Mondragon made 4 billion euros in 2012.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Because profit is a theft from the workers. By defintion a really socialist factory is not going to properly compete because it's operating on different goals.

a reply to: Xtrozero

because that life is only possible under capitalism because so many others are impoverished. We are clothed by their nakedness and nourished by their hunger.

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: Semicollegiate

www.nceo.org...

i dunno man these companies are all (at least partially and many in whole) employee owned and they seem to be doing better than alright

but i guess they dont exist because thats never happened and is impossible

The link says they are 50% owned by employees. I don't know if any of those businesses were created by the employees, probably they were all taken over by employees.

I like the idea of employee owned businesses.

That is capitalism. The owners benefit from their investment.

a reply to: freakwars

i agree its not ideal but they are all primarily or entirely owned by the employees
it illustrates that employees owning the company and making decisions for the company (in this case as majority shareholders) is workable and on a large scale
if they voted as shareholders to do something stupid or to pay themselves more than they should the company would suffer...... we do not see that however
instead we see fairly successful large scale businesses that are still capable of competing in a market where the majority pay slave wages


indirect ownership of the means yes but certainly a proof of concept

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Because profit is a theft from the workers. By defintion a really socialist factory is not going to properly compete because it's operating on different goals.

You are free to pursue any goals you choose, even screwing the consumer.

Don't impose your goals on others, and all is well.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I live a great life due to capitalism, why would I want to change that?

2nd

so the angry peasants dont dust off the guillotine ms antoinette

originally posted by: freakwars
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Because profit is a theft from the workers. By defintion a really socialist factory is not going to properly compete because it's operating on different goals.

The workers would be the owners and so the workers would get the profit.

Socialism is ignorance.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
a reply to: Semicollegiate

www.nceo.org...

i dunno man these companies are all (at least partially and many in whole) employee owned and they seem to be doing better than alright

but i guess they dont exist because thats never happened and is impossible

The link says they are 50% owned by employees. I don't know if any of those businesses were created by the employees, probably they were all taken over by employees.

I like the idea of employee owned businesses.

That is capitalism. The owners benefit from their investment.

no that by definition is socialism
....you like socialism....
......maybe not the dirty word youve learned to hate but certainly the ideals

and if you would pay attention it says at least 50% and the ones marked with a * are entirely employee owned (this is true of a lot of them)

a reply to: Semicollegiate

yes, the workers would get the full value of their labor under socialism. As opposed to capitalism, where they give up a large portion of the profit produced by the sacrifice of their life-time.

the workers get the profit because they created it, not because they have the right to as owners.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

screwing the consumer is imposing your goals on others, by definition.

originally posted by: sirhumperdink


so the angry peasants dont dust off the guillotine ms antoinette

You know it is said that the lack of food drives the need for change and the magic number is 800 calories per day. When the general population drops below that number then # happens.

When we look at America and take our poorest that are still above 6 billion plus others around the world, I need a lot of convincing....

a reply to: Xtrozero

what makes you think it'll be the Americans dusting off the guillotine?

and from where comes your faith that this won't change?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


The workers would be the owners and so the workers would get the profit.

Socialism is ignorance.

This all works well on paper but when you add those nasty humans into the mix things just do not go as plan. Just like communism where on paper everyone is equal and all work together for a common goal. In the end you have basically a dictatorship with the haves and haves not. Not controlled by money anymore, but controlled by rank, authority and position. During the cold war there were some extremely well off people in Russia with little in terms of monetary value, while the vast majority of the population had neither.

a reply to: Xtrozero

well i guess we will just have to wait and see what happens when the federal reserve ends quantitative easing (was supposed to happen already) and the rest of the world has dropped the dollar as reserve currency (which is happening as we speak)
without qe the economy is looking pretty bleak
and without the dollar being used as reserve currency its got more value as paper than currency

pretty sure all those people who feel invested will change their tune mighty quick when their retirement savings and investments are all worth nothing

the angriest people are going to be the ones that are most complacent right now

a reply to: Xtrozero

the Soviets practiced something called "State Capitalism", not communism

the definition of communism excludes a state.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


The workers would be the owners and so the workers would get the profit.

Socialism is ignorance.

This all works well on paper but when you add those nasty humans into the mix things just do not go as plan. Just like communism where on paper everyone is equal and all work together for a common goal. In the end you have basically a dictatorship with the haves and haves not. Not controlled by money anymore, but controlled by rank, authority and position. During the cold war there were some extremely well off people in Russia with little in terms of monetary value, while the vast majority of the population had neither.

I'm not a socialist. The socialists were trying to say that socialism has nothing to do with governance, like they always do.
So the employee owned company came up. Sounds OK when it works. It should never be the law.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

"like they always do"

that's because it's true