Workers deserve a share of the "surplus value" the company makes

workers would get paid based on the performance of "their" company, so when a company loses money in one year, none of the workers should be paid and they would have to support themselves with their own personal savings. :^)

something like 50% of business fail in the first five years, so that's gonna be a lot of employees earning their "fare share" of $0 dollars under a socialist style company.

Right

no because you're talking about the net profit after taxation and other things
also idiotic statistics like x businesses fail come up from people doing tshirt dying businesses and calling it self employment

Yes.
Which would mean they get an unfair share if $0 currently when a business fails.
I dont know what you were trying to say with this .

you realize businesses have down years where they lose money, not make any profit? Specially businesses that are tanking


the exact numbers change based on studies, the point is a large amount of businesses, even large ones end up failing and going bankrupt. But employees, under capitalism don't get bankrupt and lose all their savings, they just lose a paycheque.

no worker actually wants to labor for a socialist style company. They want a guaranteed income, and if the business tanks they don't want their savings to get wiped out and have to pay back loans or get bankrupt, like a business owner might.

Contrary to popular belief, most business owners aren't rich millionaires and don't get "bailed" out. Only gigantic corporations that pose systemic risks get bailed out – and that's a separate issue altogether.

We don't advocate for profit driven industry. Your point is irrelevant in a socialist society.

Sure.
Do you think capitalism gets magical market money they can use when the business is in the red? No, they go into their savings or take loans, just as a cooperative conceivably could. I don't know why you think this applies to socialism, but doesn't apply to capitalism.

Workers "deserve" to see surplus-value abolished, it can only exist under the present capitalist system.


No, they will be compensated based on their own labor-time.


This doesn't apply under a non-competitive associated economy.

Got any other jokes?

Look.
VW had the polution scandal.
Did workers had any say in how the cars are to be desinged?
Did they not suffer for the decisions of their bosses, like a peasant suffered because the lord wanted to go to war?

Factories are leaving the "First world" for china and so on.
Do the workers in the factories that close have any say?
Are they allowed to keep the factory working, after the capitalist has left?

So, in the end, in a form of refomist move to socialism, (mutualism?), sure, if the co-op doesn't get profit, workers don't get money.

But since THEY decided how to manage the co-op, THEY get the outcome of THEIR decisions.

How is this not also an argument for slavery, for example, which guarantees a livelyhood but denies you the freedom that comes with responsibility and vicertified versa? You think a lack of Will to Power is genuinely a good thing?

Under capitalism the owner assumes the operation risks, the investment cost, and the possibility of going bankrupt and making no profit. His workers forgo all those risks and choose to work for a guaranteed wage, regardless of company performance, as long as the business exists.

Under socialism a worker, dreams, for some reason, that he is entitled to a share of the "surplus value" while never having invested anything in the company or taken any risks. And demand compensation even in down years when the business loses value.

no such thing as non-competitive markets or economies.

And what of the giant, decades-old multinationals? What risks did their CEOs and majority shareholders take? Choosing to graduate from Harvard instead of Yale? Choosing to be the lucky sperm cell in the balls of the guy that actually founded the corporate empire (or that guy's son)?

The company will be started by the workers. The whole idea of "le risk" is irrelevant. Socialism doesn't have a profit motive. It would be focused on a worker controlled business that communicates with the towns people about what they need. Stop thinking about this like a capitalist.

Regardless, the workers would be responsible for the company. If it failed, that would be their fault. I still prefer it to the capitalist system.

Yes, there is.

How about the fact that if the workplace fails he will starve and so therefor he has an interest in having a say in how it's run so it doesn't do something wildly unethical or move to China or something.

George Washington didn't pay for America. The Crown had invested a shit ton of money into that.
Yet he still demanded independence and democracy because he wanted to have a say in something that affected his life and livelyhood directly.
We seek the same.

...

I ask this because it's the elephant in the room. Libertarians love these tales of sympathetic petite-bourgeois types that risked it all on a dream and prospered, while ignoring how much of our economies are dominated by multi-generational multinationals that departed from that founding story decades ago.

if only there were some way to pre-plan the economy to keep workers from producing useless crap nobody wants…

Impossible. Everyone needs to be a special snowflake entrepreneur that rapes the planet by pumping out trash made of finite resources.

There is no such thing.

hello retard

It's far less riskier in the real world to be the owner of a multinational corporation than it is to be a starving wage slave.

That's why we invented a system that transfers a small part of the enormous muh privilege the capitalist has to the worker, called taxation. Because being poor was so goddamn risky that it destabilized the whole system.

Because market competition in late capitalism has nothing to do with efficiency or quality, it's a rat race of corner cutting and office politics.

...

That's pretty much private property logic in a nutshell, sheltered jerks think they're gods among men because people have to kiss their asses to get ahead in their careers.

...

Are you the guy who patiently explained the link between corporatism and socialism?

I just wanted to thank you, gave me a lot of food for thought.

No he's a race realist ancap

Anyway,

Corporatism as a concept had nothing to do with "corporations" as profit driven legal bodies. They just used the same root for "body". Just because they both have corp as the prefix doesn't mean your secretly a capitalist. Corporatist are social democrats but they aren't interested in abolishing private property totally( just giving workers a bit more autonomy but state is ultimately authority) and aren't interested in getting rid of the state. It has almost nothing to do with anarcho-communism or mutualism and you'd struggle to find a political scientist who thinks so.

That's redundant? Social democrat and democratic socialist(/reformist socialist) are different things, a social democrat doesn't want to abolish capitalism, just regulate it and have a healthy welfare state.

Yeah that was redundant. Anyway, corporatist is not the same as socialism and does not share the end goals as communism is my point.

Actually it's very true most companies bleed money in their first several years. Irrelevant to the larger point, but trying to cover up these realities doesn't help your argument. Yes many successful companies cook the books to pay no taxes, most new companies don't have that luxury in their first few years as they are constantly losing money and, often, rely on external investment to keep them afloat until they stabilize and become profitable. Heck, the vast majority of those companies wind up failing within the first five years.

Apart from the fact that you don't seem to have a basic grasp of accounting and running a small bussiness, I don't whats wrong with those two things.

Anyway, go back to the first year of highschool and actually pay attention in economics class this time. They explained that wages are a cost just like any other, they explained how a LLC works, they explained how financing works.

Jesus fuck do I, as a communist, have to lecture people on the simples basics of how money and bussinesses work? Of course I do.

You realise that overheads and running costs must be paid? These are somebody else's wages. Likewise, reinvesting is the only way to expand. You can't trust the employees not to spend all their earnings, so when the time to expand comes, without some capital behind the company they can't.

jej.

Are you litterally retarded?


If, by some twisted miracle, a company is literally made up solely people who want to have all of the profits paid out as dividents, then that company will never grow, and thus will eventually be forced out by a company that is not run by morons, just like it is now.

Jesus man, learn how a bussiness is run. After you subtract costs like rent and electricity, the profit does not go to the "owner". The money stays inside the company, the ceo and workers are all paid a set wage, reinvestment is just another cost to be factored in to accounting. After all of the agreedupon things are met, that being all costs being paid, then the owner or owners can decide what to do with the remaining money, which only at this point can be classified as "profit". They then choose to either let it stay in the company, or pay it out as dividends.

The situation you descibed, where there is no plan for reinventment and personal and company capital is the same, with the owners being responsible for the company legally financially, does only occur in single manned or family run companies. Any company over the size of 3 or 4 employees switches to a LLC because in the event of bankruptcy of the company, the legal bankruptcy does not extend to the shareholders in a LLC.

Fucking hell mate, I was taught this when i was 14! This is really really fucking basic economics, they teach it to middle school students where I live.

not the guy you responded to btw

What happens in a capitalist business that goes bankrupt and collapses, OP? Do the workers keep getting paid or something?

Or do they have to look for new jobs?

It's called "socialist mode of production".

What's the point of this bait thread?

Kill yourself.

You completely missed his point. Everybody knows wages are a cost. His point is in a wage free society where workers simply share in the value of the company there is no value to share. New companies pay wages often at a huge loss and are able to write them off in various ways, even adding those wages back would not make them profitable, in a wage free system there would be zero profit to share in his example.

In a wage free society you wouldn't have to worry about loss or profit, about being paid to eat, because you dont have money. This moneyless society, the ultimate end goal of communists, has nothing to do with what OP posted though, because OP was talking about socialism with money.

If someone was really making this point:
Then I want to punch them for being useless morons

Disregarded.

No, you can't trust workers who are alienated from their labour and have no incentive for the well being of an industry to want to reinvest in it, since it doing well doesn't affect them.

You say it as if the people working in a business, but also managing it and owning it, would have no reason to not want the business to continue.

It's the private capitalist and shareholder who is more likely to break apart and sell off, or move production to a foreign country, or just straight up steal money from a business.

Compare the two: many workers from the local community democratically running a business in the interests of themselves and their community, who rely on the business to survive

Vs

A small board of directors made up of the largest shareholders (generally foreign or not local) deciding how best to make profit for themselves, and who can generally rely on their amassed wealth or other shares to live a lavish life.

Who can you trust to keep an industry running smoothly?

this