Hello

this is like the definition of socialism as proscribed by official american ideology

You're not reaching the same idea, though. Proletarians aren't only people who are saddled with debt or renting homes, it's everyone who has to sell their labour to survive. The bourgeoisie isn't just the top elites, though they certainly are bourgies, it's everyone who lives entirely off private property and the labour of others.

When you talk about democratizing the workplace without talking about exploitation or how it happens through private property, all you're going to get is 'huh? but why? the capitalist worked hard to be the boss!' and end up right where you started. Discussing exploitation and the specifics of production is absolutely fucking essential to all socialist thought. Without discussing where value is created, you're not discussing socialism.

I agree wholeheartedly.

While we're at it, instead of socialism we should call it supercapitalism in clapistan. Gurantee you that burgers will be far more receptive with the name alone.

The point is that you can talk to normies about why the workers are more entitled to the profits of ther labour than the capitalist class without using words that will trigger all their biases about socialism and Marxism.

We need to be pragmatic if we want to spread class consciousness.

I'm pretty sure that's a type, but I just learned a new word.

That's the point, they certainly without question or fuzziness truly, veritably the bourgeoisie class. The idea of a 1% is the way in which class consciousness expresses itself among people. You have to recognize that. Though feel free to bust out The Communist Manifesto and read it to someone page by page, but they'll likely walk away.

And I said don't use the word exploitation, but rather talk about what it is that exploitation is; being taken advantage of.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that you can't create the impression that it's just the obscenely rich or certain unethical businesspersons who are the problem, because that's a straight-up blanket desculpa for the system.

Once you talk about what exploitation and describe it in words then you may as well use the term itself. I don't think it's nearly as loaded as you think.

Plus, I already do that - most of the time when I talk to normies I repeatedly emphasize that some rich guy taking away 90% of the wealth you create to enjoy himself doesn't make businesses run more effectively nor does it make better commodities reach consumers more efficiently.

But thinking you can talk about this stuff without getting into the social relations of production I think is just silly.

And I'm asleep. You're speaking German.

But they aren't; it's not their own property therefore they don't have entitlement. If you wanted to "own your means of production" go start your own coop as you're free to and see how much of a hassle a single person can be. People won't pay their share or will and will and will be unproductive during working hours and your business will be uncompetitive and be at a disadvantage even to small businesses.

The working people won't put up with having 100% of their incomes taxed so the government can protect all of the societally useless coops across the fucking country. Normal people have families and lives that would be made difficult in your inane system that won't increase the earnings of any workers and will drop the productivity of the nation, so regarding OP's means of production comments as well, it's just redundant.

My gott

Neither does 90% of the wealth being split up between 20 people maximum who could hardly get a pittance together to create jobs through investiture.

The man with "90%" of the wealth is vital for allowing working men to earn livings for their families; splitting HIS money doesn't create local jobs, just foreign demand at best.

Sir do you understand how hard you are memeing right now

This isn't getting either of us anywhere, commie

*sniff*

...

They can, but they still can't hire anywhere near as many people even a small business can and have limited opportunities for expansion because of this as well as from having the earnings being split between two dozen people.

In the end, coops will always be predated on because of their uncompetitive model.

Yes. Dunno what you thought I would say about that, mate

you are fucking retarded dude

what you are labeling as "investment" is nothing more but capital power in order to be able to buy both commodities in the form of resources and labour power

the same workers can use their own labour power to produce said investments and they certainly have the material resources since they themselves are the woners of the means of production

in layman terms, do you unironically belive a cement factory, controlled by the workers doesn't have the man power and the resources to invest in making the plant bigger?

do you think the workers cannot decide to invest certain part of their income in this investment

pls end urself

Do you think anyone would want to work at your cuck cement factory during the 6 months spent in expansion when their incomes are going to be quartered. JC, you're just pointing out even more ways they're susceptible to predation now.

Utterly retarded. You do know that workers can just decide to reinvest a portion of their profits into the business or to hire more people in order to maintain a competitive edge?

Take this scenario: our McDonalds has just been collectivized. The boss has been previously taking a huge share of the profits to buy boats and luxury dildos, paying the workers 7.50 an hour. Following collectivization, the workers are faced with a dilemma: what shall their new wages be?

They could pay themselves 50 an hour, in the process rendering themselves noncompetitive and having to close down shop in three weeks, after which they will have to go back to working for 7.50 an hour at a non-collectivized workplace.

Or, they could decide to stay competitive so they can keep making good money and raise their wages to say, the rough equivalent of 15 an hour, so they can have enough left over for payroll and constant capital.

Because they're not retarded like you, they will choose the latter option.

Considering they're also getting porky's share, even a quarter would be considerably more than what they get under the capitalist mode of production, retard.

Here is a study done on worker co-ops from the US, Europe and Latin America and its finding are as follows:

The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not
necessarily less capital intensive
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have
more stable employment
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses,
with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more
efficiently
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other
business models
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker
co-operatives than other firms

They couldn't, which is the problem. Yes, in my local area, the McDonald owner owns 5 stores but he is only able to do so reasonably because each Mcdonalds store hires a good several dozen people. With the money being split up, the new owners would have to fire half of the workers in order to earn enough to expand and then would be rendered unproductive by doing so.

The thing's called economy of scale for a reason fuckup; because you need a fuck load of people's wages in order to keep a large operation competitive (this also means having money laying around to actively invest)

so what is the difference between the boss having to sell his stocked pile of profits and a syndicate or a cooperative having to sell theirs?

where do you make the distinction?

Do you think anyone would like to make buisness with a cuck guy that owns a cement factory during the 6 months of expansion when his purchasing power is going to be quartered?

How exactly is the cooperative engaging in more risk while the capitalist isn't?
the capitalist just spent 75% of what he has piled up, and suddenly one of the machines go bad, now he basically cucked himself, but somehow this scenario is impossible? this scenenario is somewhat not relevant?

whatever happens at the factory, whatever the economic situation the factory goes through because of both outside market forces and technical trouble are completly irrelevant on how it is administrated, you cannot simply imply an investment done by a capitalist will e silky smooth

more over, lets pretend the capitalist does invest 75% of the stock he managed to pile up, and something goes bad and he somehow cannot pay wages, do you think anyone is going to wark in his cuck factory at all at that point??

you are an even bigger cuck than I tought, pls go get cucked

and why would a workers co-op decide to invest in 5 McD's over different options to begin with??

How does this model account for managerial roles? presumably at a certain point these roles become necessary. would someone take on a role without extra compensation? i don't think so. how would the amounts be decided on?

by vote from all workers of course

...

Here, perhaps this will help your dumb ass understand.

The workers can collectively decide on that. If someone's managerial or actuarial skills are important to the collective interest, then they would find it reasonable to offer extra pay. These things actually exist in real life, dude, we're not talking about some vague theoretical idea.

Read

They couldn't, which is the problem. Yes, in my local area, the McDonald owner owns 5 stores but he is only able to do so reasonably because each Mcdonalds store hires a good several dozen people. With the money being split up, the new owners would have to fire half of the workers in order to earn enough to expand and then would be rendered unproductive by doing so.

The thing's called economy of scale for a reason fuckup; because you need a fuck load of people's wages in order to keep a large operation competitive (this also means having money laying around to actively invest)>>945853

Because if two men want the business to expand they have to go through the other 30 who don't want their paychecks cut.

They wouldn't be able to as I said before. They would have a choice between paying workers fuck all for a good period if they wanted to actively invest or fire half of their employees and be rendered uncompetitive.
Also I was talking about the big man on top because you were talking about splitting his earnings between all the workers; the point is in most instances the workers would be looking at getting a hell of a lot less than what they'd need to manage actively investing

What would even be the point if the same amount of money was invested on both sides? A good feeling in the tummy?

Thanks for acknowledging that study Im sad to say it to my like 15 to find for the wagecuck fuckwit

but these 30 other men understand that they can produce more if they invest part of their paychecks

do you unironially belive on ur retarded ass underst the whole investment meme?

they absolutely would

nothing different from a capitalist understand he would need to pay more bills during this investment

again, you are implying workers are too dumb to understand they can invest, and that it is a sacrifice that must be made in order to increase production

plus you are still forgetting than you could democratically decide to invest, and people who don't want to would simply not invest and won't be partial owners of the new McD's, just like they currently aren't owners of another co-op

shoot yourself in the DICK

The end result for the economy is the same (same growth) but the workers get paid more, which is good for the workers.

the thing you dont understand is that there are no "new owners" the workers themselve own the company and directly have input in how its business is carried out in a democratic way

you could arguee that there would be more growth mainly because most of the currency would be in circulation and not inside a panama/irish bank getting dust

If it's in their interest to expand, 30 people would take a minor hit in the short term in order to gain more in the long term. If they choose to not risk it, they may lose market share to a firm that does go and take that risk, which they will probably end up working for. These are absurd non-problems.

The point is so the people who produce the value, that is, the workers, get all the profits that they generate. Without someone stealing them.

I should add that when workers have money to spend, they tend to use it on good and services, something the very rich don't do very much of as they only spend their obscene wealth when they think it will make them more money, so this is ultimately good for the economy as well. The problem of workers not having money to buy the commodities they produce is a well-known problem of capitalism and something that Keynesian economics tried to address.

Look user I ask you to read the study I posted in . Even if you still don't think that co-ops are better do it so that you can understand your own stances better and are able to formulate you arguments better.

No they don't. As you said yourself, the money stays the same on either side. Business owners actively invest large portions of their earnings to remain competitive; it's basic economics. There's no ""extra money"" that the employees would be getting besides the profits of one man which would be a pittance when split between the two hundred workers in the operation and the eight hundred at his other operations. He only had his megabucks because he owned five operations each employing two hundred people each.

now THIS is how you fucking meme Holla Forums

Its not terminology in your example some other group comes in and fires half the staff when in reality it would be half of the workers trying to out vote the other half to fire them and that just wouldnt happen

That problem is already addressed by low interest rates and fair trade policies (tarrifs on certain foreign imports to protect small and local businesses)

Or make sure they keep making money as competition forces them to actively invest large portions of their earning, which the workers in your coop will also have to do.

Three things:

1. That one man takes a lot of fucking money

2. The owners of a company is often a group of shareholders

3. There are employees in the bussiness that get paid much more than neccecary for doing a job not much more important than the other work, such as the CEO. A CEO is just as important a machine operator and its only due to the commodification of labour that it would seems its not so.

But the thing is neither the rich nor their coprs are investing they are just sitting on that cash and doing nothing with it

thefinancialist.com/why-arent-businesses-investing/

it is not

explotation still exist under these circumstances

the "le fair trade meme" is such a fucking bullshit meme, the only reason I assume your country is getting depleted of jobs is because of capitalism

do you think worker co-ops in china, mexico the US and europe working together to protect local markets, the customer and the enviroment would ship their jobs somewhere else??

yea its damn near impossible for capital flight or outsourcing to happen to worker co-ops

Lets have a look at apple for example

You see that Ipad? 30%. 30 fucking percent. And thats for apple alone. The labour costs are only 7%.

You see that iphone? 58% pure fucking profit. 5.3% labour cost.

Yes man, "its only the profit of one man".

proft motivated capital-flight would be almost non-existant

I guess a mining company would move and run out of buisness once the mine gets completly depleated, but thats a different issue compared to a capitalist sending production to china because of lower wages

Fair trade isn't a meme, it's straightforward propaganda for tariffs.

huh I think you got the wrong person here im on the co-op side

Also was discussing Keynesian economic policy, which I mistakingly criticized as fair trade policies in conjunction with low interest rates are near enough the same

I was agreeing with you if it wasnt aparent

I tought it was a sarcastic post

srry

How is capital flight or outsourcing going to happen in a co-op where the decisions are going to be made in a democratic way with all the workers getting a vote? Tell me what non catatonic worker is going to vote for their job to be shipped overseas?

no worries

No, it's protective policies for small and local businesses; a branch your beloved coops would fall under.

What's that got to do with fucking coops? Are you going to force a country to jump the gun on every non-coop business?

That's only because of outsourced labour; the profits from what isn't outsourced would be far more marginal. Also the one man who owns your local Apple store isn't steve fucking jobs

see lats part here

tbh that is what unironically the US military should be doing right now, instead of mistaking targets in syria, but thats another meme

he probably got a portion of the profits from that store

Again my post says that co-ops are at least as large and survive at least as long and are more stable and more productive then your small business

And what's so special about outsourced labour?
That's right, they're paid really fucking poorly.

If you took that profit and spread it to the outsourced labour, they could live like human beings!

You seem to have bought entirely into the meme that wages are as high as they could be given the conditions. The fact is that employers have every incentive to pay people as poorly as they can and take as much as they can for themselves.

We simply want to reverse this state of affairs so that there is no exploitation of the workers who produce value.

A man should be entitled to the sweat of his brow as the old saying goes

also
americans plz

So? What kind of stupid excuse is that? So american minimum wage would be 4x what chinse workers make, which would put the labour costs in china for an ipad at 8% and for iphones at 7.2%. Hardly a fucking difference.

cnet.com/news/low-wages-and-long-hours-still-persist-at-iphone-factory-claims-labor-group/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

So in short, stop trying to make it seem you are right, labour is still a teeni tiny fraction of the total cost, even if you move to a first world country, and it would save a bit of transportation too. The owner of whatever retail shop carries apple garbage has nothing to do with the profit the apple corporation makes, but regardless of that, he, a small francise owner, also takes part of the labour of his employees.

also note in franchises the local shop is buying the product from its parent company/manufacturer so Apple as the multinational makes a profit whether the little shop owner sells that phone or not

I don't know if you are still there user but thank you for helping me strengthen not only the generalities but the nuances of my economic ideals and theories

...

Its a good phrase even if it was used by an ancap character

Ehhh, "working person"/"Working people" don't really work for those of us that don't want to identify with the human race/don't work.

Soooo try again