|
https://twitter.com/soft_btw/status/1022022356603154435 https://twitter.com/shitshowdotinfo/status/1022022862000013313
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
I think I support workplace democracy and all for large corporations like Kroger and businesses with a certain amount of employees or revenue, but I'm wondering with workplace democracy in place, where does the incentive for entrepreneurship come from? Googling about it, I found https://solidarity-us.org/atc/174/p4340/ which mentions one economist's idea for entrepeneurs to be exempted as long as the startup isn't sold to some megacorporation or inherited
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
That ad is ftw
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I think I support workplace democracy and all for large corporations like Kroger and businesses with a certain amount of employees or revenue, but I'm wondering with workplace democracy in place, where does the incentive for entrepreneurship come from? Googling about it, I found https://solidarity-us.org/atc/174/p4340/ which mentions one economist's idea for entrepeneurs to be exempted as long as the startup isn't sold to some megacorporation or inherited bro what's entrepreneurship is it being someone's boss
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
"Without the possible gains of exploitation, no one would take initiative" is one of the strangest and vilest lies capitalism makes us believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:That ad is ftw that ad is insanely cspam
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I think I support workplace democracy and all for large corporations like Kroger and businesses with a certain amount of employees or revenue, but I'm wondering with workplace democracy in place, where does the incentive for entrepreneurship come from? Googling about it, I found https://solidarity-us.org/atc/174/p4340/ which mentions one economist's idea for entrepeneurs to be exempted as long as the startup isn't sold to some megacorporation or inherited entrepreneurship would be communal and not just a handful of guys getting high on coke and then applying for a bank loan to open their own Chik-Fil-A franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I'm wondering with workplace democracy in place, where does the incentive for entrepreneurship come from? People have pursued and continue to pursue ideas and "enterprises" for millennia for motivations other than getting rich off of their employees' labour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
there will be a new class struggle once the bourgeoisie are kicked out of the drivers seat, but it will be unimaginable to us as our society would be unimaginable to peasants in the French countryside in 1600 or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
actually it's just gonna be against computers
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Love 2 behead bitcoin mining rigs
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I think I support workplace democracy and all for large corporations like Kroger and businesses with a certain amount of employees or revenue, but I'm wondering with workplace democracy in place, where does the incentive for entrepreneurship come from? Googling about it, I found https://solidarity-us.org/atc/174/p4340/ which mentions one economist's idea for entrepeneurs to be exempted as long as the startup isn't sold to some megacorporation or inherited https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObpJCgUHft8 the idea that creating new businesses won't happen unless you have a parasite at the top exploiting everyone else necessary to the functioning of the enterprise is just ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
think of money as a tool of labor allocation instead of getting a bunch of money through whatever means (bank loan, inheritance, theft, whatever) so you can be the parasite at the top of an undemocratic hierarchy and demand other people work for your benefit in a new enterprise simply because you have the money to dictate labor allocation... you instead convince a bunch of like-minded individuals necessary to the enterprise to work together with you as peers in the new enterprise. ideally in gay luxury space communism, people completely voluntarily decide how to allocate their labor instead of using undemocratic means like a capitalist system of money in a capitalist system where people are heavily indoctrinated and trained to be subservient workers willing to be exploited, it unfortunately makes sense for self-interested people to make sure they are a parasite at the top of the hierarchy to exploit others' labor. the only real benefit to doing worker co-ops in such a system is b/c you want to move away from capitalism or because you really think the enterprise may have a greater chance of succeeding b/c of greater worker drive in a worker co-op system comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:think of money as a tool of labor allocation Are you saying co-ops are a step away from capitalism? You do know the workers are just exploiting themselves...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Infernot posted:Are you saying co-ops are a step away from capitalism? You do know the workers are just exploiting themselves... *puffs the fukkin weed* drat dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
Infernot posted:Are you saying co-ops are a step away from capitalism? You do know the workers are just exploiting themselves... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:*puffs the fukkin weed* It isn't a controversial observation. Rosa Luxemburg said as much...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:It isn't a controversial observation. Rosa Luxemburg said as much... she also did describe them as a "step away from capitalism," just that they were doomed to failure in the long run and aren't viable methods of achieving socialism on any large scale. "workers exploiting themselves" isn't a necessarily accurate description of what she wrote in reform or revolution
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
I don't think co-ops are necessarily doing anything either. People who are in to that can do whatever tho. It's funny that people think there's something inherently anticapitalist about them though. Most of the ones I know of run exactly like a business where the partners vote on what to do, but they try to pay their handful of employees better
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
I think co-ops are, in the same veins as unions, good exercises in building solidarity and class consciousness among workers and getting around the "there is no alternative" mindset that a lot of folks have w/r/t how work "should be" but no, they ain't gonna lead to socialism and they still function entirely within the realm of capitalism
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
“Workers exploiting themselves” is a meaningless distinction. you’re not going to get paid the full value of your labor even under communism, because communist economy is needs oriented, meaning the more productive you are the more society’s needs are met but not necessarily your wants. the problem with co-ops is that they’re still trapped in commodity logic, but it’s still a step away from capitalism in the literal sense that capitalist ownership and management is dispensed with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Postoyevsky posted:she also did describe them as a "step away from capitalism," just that they were doomed to failure in the long run and aren't viable methods of achieving socialism on any large scale. "workers exploiting themselves" isn't a necessarily accurate description of what she wrote in reform or revolution In the long run they either dissolve or govern themselves into operating as exploitatively as "pure capitalist enterprises" with them fulfilling the role of the exploited labor and the exploiting "capitalist entrepreneur". It's not verbatim what she said but it's far from inaccurate  "The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving." I see supporting them as useful for developing facets of communications/planning/coordinating advancements that might not otherwise be developed under capitalism that would also be useful outside of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
*xzibit image macro* we made your enterprise a co-op so you can be exploited while you exploit
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:In the long run they either dissolve or govern themselves into operating as exploitatively as "pure capitalist enterprises" with them fulfilling the role of the exploited labor and the exploiting "capitalist entrepreneur". It's not verbatim what she said but it's far from inaccurate "Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange." (step away from capitalism, not entirely capitalist, etc) I pointed out that they were "doomed to failure" as well, but being forced to govern themselves as a "capitalist entrepreneur" still isn't the same thing as "exploiting themselves," which is a pointless phrase. Marx himself wrote extensively in Critique of the Gotha Program that even under socialism, workers would still not receive the absolute undiminished proceeds of their labor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
All systems have contradictions the transition from feudalism to capitalism wasn't instantaneous it took hundreds of years over many tiny changes. Gay Luxury Space Communism is a goal but until then I'm fine with the evil stepladders of unions and co-ops And it might not even be up to us as a people, we might have to wait until technology advances enough
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
I see we're having our quarterly "are coops socialism?" chat
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Postoyevsky posted:"Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange." (step away from capitalism, not entirely capitalist, etc) Of course, but capitalist exploitation isn't just when you don't receive the full value of your labor. Capitalist exploitation is when the amount of your labor that contributes to the expansion of capital (or more generally, the expansion of productivity) is systematically maximized, which is something that happens within cooperatives, but not under socialism. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
maybe i'm overthinking it here, but it seems to me that in a socialist system not getting the full value back from your labor would be offset by the fact that you would no longer have to spend money on things like food, housing, medical care etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Tiberius Christ posted:And it might not even be up to us as a people, we might have to wait until technology advances enough We don't have the luxury of waiting for hypothetical technology
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1022497918194999296
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:We don't have the luxury of waiting for hypothetical technology  Take the Nazis. They aren't waiting for technology to advance further to gain their white nation, they are taking measured steps in the here and now to further opression and increase white power. You don't fight that with technology, you fight that with policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
So if co-ops aren't the answer. (I have to admit I thought they were, but I do see you guys points.) What would be a good way to organise ourselves to do labour to make all the things that we need and and want to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
BoneMonkey posted:So if co-ops aren't the answer. (I have to admit I thought they were, but I do see you guys points.) What would be a good way to organise ourselves to do labour to make all the things that we need and and want to do? War Communism
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:War Communism whats that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_war
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
To be honest it's still something that I don't quite understand about Marxism. How is investment in new projects under socialism supposed to happen without the extraction of surplus value from ongoing, established factories, communes or other projects? Where are the actual machines and other physical capital supposed to be acquired from without value being extracted from someone? Even if you assume communes could simply donate required capital to each other without asking for anything in return, which I find a bit of a doubtful proposition to begin with considering base human nature, there is always going to be capital that has to be acquired from open markets. Surplus value must at some level be extracted from someone to finance investments. Thus, if being paid less than the labour value of your work is on some level necessary even for a socialist commune to accrue capital for growth, exploitation as a concept and a qualia of capitalist exployment, ceases to have the same meaning for members of a commune when the choice of "exploitation" falls on the members and the members alone. You're just deciding to save some of your income instead of spending it. Then if all the communes together decide to levy taxes on themselves on their profits, individual communares are again (collectively) deciding to use (a portion of) what they have saved for some common projects. I'm going on a limb at this point, but I guess the key defining whether work is exploitation or not isn't how much of the labour value you're being paid in wages, but what is the relationship of the people being paid for their work is to the creature doing the paying? If the workers own the workplace and decide their own wages (through whatever instrument), it's not exploitation. if they do not own the workplace, it is exploitation no matter what they're being paid for their work. What remains an open wound of a question is what ought the relationship of the commune itself be to the socialist society as a whole, and to other communes within it? How do you extract surplus value from existing communes to fund the creation of new ones without either party being exploited in the process?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
lollontee posted:To be honest it's still something that I don't quite understand about Marxism. How is investment in new projects under socialism supposed to happen without the extraction of surplus value from ongoing, established factories, communes or other projects? Where are the actual machines and other physical capital supposed to be acquired from without value being extracted from someone? Even if you assume communes could simply donate required capital to each other without asking for anything in return, which I find a bit of a doubtful proposition to begin with considering base human nature, there is always going to be capital that has to be acquired from open markets. google gift economy
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
yeah, that's not gonna work I don't think
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
when you do things for someone else you don't quite know and fully trust, you do expect to get some sort of a guarantee that your efforts will be repaid in some form. just saying that in a socialist society, everybody will trust each other fully and it'll be fine is not a satisfying answer to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Sanders is the path to Full Communism. I enjoy reading your posts, rudatron, but wanted to reply to a few things you've said in this thread. Social democracy as represented by Sanders is not a stepping stone to communism- it's more or less the status quo in many European countries now. You said before the promises the Left makes ring hollow but the immediate benefits of universal healthcare, free tuition, etc. are evident. The US Left was basically destroyed in the 30's and never recovered, so I would say the fact that a Left even exists as a (barely) viable political force is quite a change. I would say the Marxist-Leninist communist movement is moribund and ineffectual pretty much everywhere but the Left is a much broader thing and you really can't generalize about it on a global level. Ideologies mutate and hibernate but they can't really die. China is making more Marxist noises lately- I think it's mostly a sham but I've no doubt that there is a growing contingent of sincere Marxists there and it might make a difference in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:11
|
|