Can a worker owned and managed economy work?

[caveman1917]

The only way the monied classes could be happier is if we reintroduced work houses and debtors' prisons.

If? https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/20/mass-incarceration-prison-labor-in-the-united-states/

Of course, none of this has anything to do with employees owning shares in their employer's company.

The OP wasn't talking about workers owning shares in their master's company either, that's just your interpretation of it. An interpretation which is incorrect given the "libertarian socialist and anarchist circles" as noted by the OP.

And even if we were talking about the capitalist notion of employees owning shares in the company they work for, then the precarious situation of the working class (forced to sell their labour power for a wage so as to survive) is certainly still an argument for it.

 

[Francesca R]

Yeah because teenager working in pizza shop is such an accurate representation of the economy .

Its good that you're using denial to buttress up your ideological preferences. Lab tests have shown it's the only thing with adequate sticking power to hold such faiths up.

And this story is relevant how?

She was no better than the rest of them. Worse actually. Trust me on that.

 

[abaddon]

You were self employed by someone else?

That does happen. Did it myself for 5 years.

 

[Craig B]

That does happen. Did it myself for 5 years.

Contradiction in terms. Such arrangements are usually artificial contrivances by which employers attempt to divest themselves of legal responsibility for the wellbeing of their employees. They are comparable with tax avoidance schemes. People are employed by other persons, or by themselves, or not employed at all.

 

[abaddon]

Contradiction in terms. Such arrangements are usually artificial contrivances by which employers attempt to divest themselves of legal responsibility for the wellbeing of their employees. They are comparable with tax avoidance schemes. People are employed by other persons, or by themselves, or not employed at all.

That's exactly right. By any measure, one is a full time employee. Except that the employer sets it up so that the employee is registered as self employed/sole trader. The onus for tax returns/health care/holidays/sick leave is thus shifted to the employee with no contribution from the employer. It is a sharp practice to be sure, but fairly common.

 

[Jerrymander]

Yeah because teenager working in pizza shop is such an accurate representation of the economy (specifically employment relations) at large. If you don't like the idea of a worker-owned economy then just say so, these silly petit-bourgeois retorts about teenagers in pizza shops are useless no matter how you put them.

I never said I "didn't like" the idea. I'm bringing up scenarios that might challenge your idea. Its called a discussion.

 

[caveman1917]

I never said I "didn't like" the idea. I'm bringing up scenarios that might challenge your idea. Its called a discussion.

My idea? You're the one who brought it up. Besides, your scenario doesn't challenge anything, it merely serves to muddy the distinction between income derived from labour and income derived from the exploitation of others' labour.

 

[The Don]

Yeah because teenager working in pizza shop is such an accurate representation of the economy (specifically employment relations) at large. If you don't like the idea of a worker-owned economy then just say so, these silly petit-bourgeois retorts about teenagers in pizza shops are useless no matter how you put them.

I think people were pointing out some of the possible flaws with a "worker-owned economy". If I have a great idea and have to invest a lot of my own time and money into getting it off the ground then there's a huge disincentive to do that if I lose the intellectual property and the value of that investment the moment I take on my second employee.

IMO it is entirely possible for a well-established company in a mature industry to be employee owned but I'd be sceptical if it can extend to an entire industry sector, much less the whole economy.

 

[Spindrift]

I think people were pointing out some of the possible flaws with a "worker-owned economy". If I have a great idea and have to invest a lot of my own time and money into getting it off the ground then there's a huge disincentive to do that if I lose the intellectual property and the value of that investment the moment I take on my second employee.

IMO it is entirely possible for a well-established company in a mature industry to be employee owned but I'd be sceptical if it can extend to an entire industry sector, much less the whole economy.

But can it be employee run as in the OP. Management by election?

I don't think that could ever work on any large scale.

 

[Tippit]

My idea? You're the one who brought it up. Besides, your scenario doesn't challenge anything, it merely serves to muddy the distinction between income derived from labour and income derived from the exploitation of others' labour.

As long as employment arrangements are voluntary, then there is no exploitation of labor. In fact, capitalism isn't to blame for the massive consolidation of wealth, and the wealth gap that continues to emerge in the world - central banks and their elite benefactors are. These institutions can create unlimited amounts of credit and use it to literally buy all of the most important and lucrative assets in the world. This results in fewer assets for everyone else, higher rents, and perpetually debased savings and wages.

In fact, the monetary insanity that is occurring right now in the world is not only unprecedented, but it has about as much to do with capitalism as does armed robbery, or any other crime (albeit on a far larger scale). Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production - nothing more. It's the right to open your own lemonade stand and sell lemonade, or employ others who may not want to take that risk.

The elites who run the central bank scams are the same ones sponsoring socialism and communism - they're ideological trojan horses. It was John D. Rockefeller who originally said "Competition is a sin." They would quickly abolish capitalism if they could get away with it, now that they're on top. What we need is a functioning justice system, and the abolition of specific institutions that are literally enabling the world to be stolen as described by the quote in my signature.

 

[Craig B]

@Tippit

1 Who, specifically, are "the elites that run the central bank scams"?
2 in the absence of central banks, I suppose money would have to consist of precious metals. Is that so? Or if not, what would it be?

I suppose this is true, that Capitalism is "the right to open your own lemonade stand and sell lemonade, or employ others who may not want to take that risk" but a capitalist economic system is more than that. It is one in which private interests - not necessarily those of sole-trading lemonade vendors - dominate the politics of the state. Religion is no more than belief in the supernatural, but theocracy is something more. Every state employs officials, but the bureaucratic ruling group in the former USSR defined the political system in that country.

An "employment arrangement" may be voluntary without being fair, if it involves on one hand an employee who must work or starve on one side, and a multinational conglomerate (rather than a sole-trading lemonade vendor) on the other, with the message, take it or leave it. If you quit your job there's plenty more out there desperate to take your place.

 

[The Don]

But can it be employee run as in the OP. Management by election?

I don't think that could ever work on any large scale.

IMO in theory, yes, in real life, no.

People are just too selfish and will tend to vote in their own short-term self interest. They will select candidates who will promise shorter working hours and higher wages rather than those who advocate business innovation and putting the workers' interests behind (or at least level with) those of their customers.

 

[caveman1917]

As long as employment arrangements are voluntary, then there is no exploitation of labor.

Too bad that "obey my commands or starve to death" isn't a voluntary arrangement then. Furthermore, your conclusion doesn't follow even if employment arrangements were voluntary.

As to the exploitation of labour: I've just bought your company. Now donate me a new yacht from the products of your labour[*] you slave!

...

* yeah I'm totally not free-riding on (exploiting) your labour, nothing to see here, move along...

 

[caveman1917]

How voluntary

On this day in 1845, UK Parliament passed an enclosure act, taking away public land, and appointing enclosure commissioners who could enclose more land without submitting a request to Parliament. From the 17th to 20th centuries, the British government passed over 5000 enclosure acts, enclosing 6.8 million acres of common, public land. Often military force was used to crush anyone who resisted. The enclosures were a vital part of the development of capitalism, as they created a whole class of landless people who had no way of surviving other than selling their labour power - the working class. This is a history of enclosures: https://libcom.org/history/short-history-enclosure-britain, and our introduction to capitalism he explains the importance of enclosures in capitalism's development: https://libcom.org/library/capitalism-introduction
Pictured: a map showing earlier land enclosures

 

[caveman1917]

I suppose this is true, that Capitalism is "the right to open your own lemonade stand and sell lemonade, or employ others who may not want to take that risk"

No it isn't. Capitalism is
1. Private ownership of the means of production.
2. Wage labour.
3. Production for profit.

Even a mutualist can open a lemonade stand and sell lemonade. In fact, people with lemonade stands should be anti-capitalist since capitalism and its associated wealth inequality minimizes their sales.

 

[psionl0]

No it isn't. Capitalism is
1. Private ownership of the means of production.
2. Wage labour.
3. Production for profit.

Oh. You mean True Capitalism.

 

[caveman1917]

Oh. You mean True Capitalism.

No I mean capitalism.

 

[Craig B]

No it isn't. Capitalism is
1. Private ownership of the means of production.
2. Wage labour.
3. Production for profit.

Even a mutualist can open a lemonade stand and sell lemonade. In fact, people with lemonade stands should be anti-capitalist since capitalism and its associated wealth inequality minimizes their sales.

The proprietor of a lemonade stand might be a private individual, a capitalist conglomerate, a mutualist cooperative, or even the state. But the fact remains that I personally could decide to open one, and if I did so, I would be a capitalist even under your criteria, because that would be private ownership of the means, if not of production, certainly of distribution.

And I can do that if I want, and if I have the modest funds that would be required. That is indeed "capitalism". But so what? It is utterly trivial. Nobody needs to worry about whether the local lemonade stand is owned by an individual or some other entity.

It is another example of the argument we've seen before, Trivial examples of things are contrived and advanced for the purpose of disparaging real valid concerns:

You're worried about capitalism? Why? A ice cream kiosk, if it is privately owned, is capitalism. Why should anyone worry about that? It's a completely specious argument, and my post was an attempt to refute it. It's like saying, the receptionist in your local social security office is a state functionary, so why are you worried about state functionary Stalin, if you're not worried about the receptionist?

 

[Craig B]

No it isn't. Capitalism is
1. Private ownership of the means of production.
2. Wage labour.
3. Production for profit.

Even a mutualist can open a lemonade stand and sell lemonade. In fact, people with lemonade stands should be anti-capitalist since capitalism and its associated wealth inequality minimizes their sales.

The proprietor of a lemonade stand might be a private individual, a capitalist conglomerate, a mutualist cooperative, or even the state. But the fact remains that I personally could decide to open one, and if I did so, I would be a capitalist even under your criteria, because that would be private ownership of the means, if not of production, certainly of distribution.

And I can do that if I want, and if I have the modest funds that would be required. That is indeed "capitalism". But so what? It is utterly trivial. Nobody needs to worry about whether the local lemonade stand is owned by an individual or some other entity.

It is another example of the argument we've seen before. Trivial examples of things are contrived and advanced for the purpose of disparaging real valid concerns:

You're worried about capitalism? Why? An ice cream kiosk, if it is privately owned, is capitalism. Why should anyone worry about that? It's a completely specious argument, and my post was an attempt to refute it. It's like saying, the receptionist in your local social security office is a state functionary, so why are you worried about state functionary Stalin, if you're not worried about the receptionist?

 

[caveman1917]

The proprietor of a lemonade stand might be a private individual, a capitalist conglomerate, a mutualist cooperative, or even the state. But the fact remains that I personally could decide to open one, and if I did so, I would be a capitalist even under your criteria, because that would be private ownership of the means, if not of production, certainly of distribution.

And I can do that if I want, and if I have the modest funds that would be required. That is indeed "capitalism". But so what? It is utterly trivial. Nobody needs to worry about whether the local lemonade stand is owned by an individual or some other entity.

No it isn't capitalism, it's a lemonade stand. People have been doing the equivalent of lemonade stands for ages, capitalism has only been around for a couple of centuries. Just because lemonade stands can exist under capitalism doesn't mean they have anything to do with capitalism as such, they can exist under many other economic systems as well.

That's like saying "planting a tree is capitalism" because people can plant trees under capitalism.