Furthermore, that "moral" world without private property has been tried again and again, with absolutely horrible results. — ssu

China isn't so horrible.

And now the idea of a stakeholder is widely accepted. — ssu

As lip service. Until corporations are governed democratically, it's window dressing.

And you have here, just to give an example, Nordic corporatism — ssu

Where's "here"? I'm talking mostly about the US, not Scandinavia. But I think it's true, there's a lot to learn from the Nordic model.

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation.
— Xtrix
And just what ought to be the input of people who don't have a clue what the corporation does? — ssu

The corporation operates in a community, and to the extent that they employ people in that community, have buildings in that community, effect traffic in that community, and have environmental effects in that community, I think the community has more than a clue indeed, and should have some input. There should be community outreach and meetings with the local governments. Some of this takes place, but mostly it doesn't.

Workers have no input either.
— Xtrix
:roll:

Have you had a job? I would disagree here. — ssu

Then you're just ignoring what I'm writing -- and it's getting tiresome. Re-read what I wrote. If you want to have a conversation with an imaginary interlocutor you've concocted out of thin air, you're free to.

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero. If you don't understand this point, you have no clue how corporations are run.

The government where I live has fallen on some hard times, so hard in fact that it’s liquor and cannabis distribution workers are going on strike, with other state industries soon to follow. Besides a lack of product for drinkers and smokers, this poses a problem for small business owners, many of whom are still trying to make ends meet since the government shuttered their businesses during the Covid days. Since the state has taken it upon itself to monopolize liquor distribution, there is little to nothing these businesses can do. It is expected that workers will be out of a job before long. Eat the poor indeed.

China isn't so horrible. — Xtrix

Really? Compared to what? North Korea? :roll:

Even if they (the CCP) say there still Marxist-Leninists, they do have private property (especially after Mao). With so many billionaires and real estate bubble bursting, I don't think the country qualifies for a true communist state. Basically it's a fascist state: a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and government control of strategic industries. It's only been given this Socialist veneer in rhetoric.

Where's "here"? I'm talking mostly about the US, not Scandinavia. — Xtrix

I refer here to the Nordic countries. Do note that this is an international forum

The corporation operates in a community, and to the extent that they employ people in that community, have buildings in that community, effect traffic in that community, and have environmental effects in that community, I think the community has more than a clue indeed, and should have some input. There should be community outreach and meetings with the local governments. Some of this takes place, but mostly it doesn't. — Xtrix

Yet wouldn't that "community outreach" look to you as window dressing? And if they have meetings with local governments, what's on the issue? Increasing job positions in the community? I guess every local government would usually like that. And what about the people?

In reality, the "community", the people likely won't give a shit about a corporation if they don't work there. Likely the only reason they would want to complain about something. Now if that complaint is justified, wouldn't it be ought to be covered by laws and regulations?

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero. — Xtrix

Zero? That is simply not true. Your picture is far too black and white exaggerations. And I notice you have the urge to talk about "the workers", perhaps referring to them as this mythical downtrodden class. Even to talk about employees, you would have to admit that there's many types of employees, mid-level staff and managers below the executive class. These are people that executive have to listen. And basically, if you run down your company for short term profits, guess what, sooner or later the company is a former company.

Really? Compared to what? North Korea? :roll: — ssu

In many ways compared to the US. I’m well aware they’re the current bogeyman. There’s plenty I don’t like about China. But you mentioned “horrible results” regarding private property. And China just isn’t that horrible. In fact economically it’s a powerhouse, and millions have been raised out of poverty.

Even if they (the CCP) say there still Marxist-Leninists, they do have private property (especially after Mao). With so many billionaires and real estate bubble bursting, I don't think the country qualifies for a true communist state. — ssu

Predictably. Just jump right into what you meant to say initially: anything horrible = communism, anything good = capitalism. :yawn:

Incidentally, I don’t think it’s communist either — for very different reasons. Not because some private property exists at the margins.

In reality, the "community", the people likely won't give a shit about a corporation if they don't work there. Likely the only reason they would want to complain about something. — ssu

Yeah, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Having lived in several cities and towns in the US, I’ll just leave you to your “reality.”

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero.
— Xtrix
Zero? That is simply not true. — ssu

That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions. I can’t help that.

They have zero say.

And basically, if you run down your company for short term profits, guess what, sooner or later the company is a former company. — ssu

And that’s happened more and more.

In many ways compared to the US. I’m well aware they’re the current bogeyman. There’s plenty I don’t like about China. But you mentioned “horrible results” regarding private property. And China just isn’t that horrible. In fact economically it’s a powerhouse, and millions have been raised out of poverty. — Xtrix

It is true that they have raised millions from poverty and don't face starvation as they did in truth with the failed Maoist experiments. But what is has been is a gigantic building spree and the use of cheap labor only goes so far. And their self-made hurdle they made for themselves with the one-child policy is now going to bite them hard. So I'm not sure just how great powerhouse China actually is. Let's look after a couple of years.

Having lived in several cities and towns in the US - That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions. — Xtrix

I've worked in corporations, but have you?

So I'm not sure just how great powerhouse China actually is. Let's look after a couple of years. — ssu

Completely misses the point, but sure. Let's look at the US in a few years, for that matter. The replacement rate is low here as well.

Having lived in several cities and towns in the US - That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions.
— Xtrix
I've worked in corporations, but have you? — ssu

Yes. Profit and non-profit. Completely beside the point, but there's an answer.

The replacement rate is low here as well. — Xtrix

US demographics is far better, thanks to immigration.

Yes. Profit and non-profit. Completely beside the point, but there's an answer. — Xtrix

And you think in those profit and non-profit organizations the managers didn't listen one iota at their workforce about anything? Nope, zero. They had their information from God (or something) and preached it to the organization without wanting to hear any feedback?

US demographics is far better, thanks to immigration. — ssu

It's 1.9 in the US; replacement rate is 2.1. China is 1.15, and one of the lowest. They're both too low.

And you think in those profit and non-profit organizations the managers didn't listen one iota at their workforce about anything? Nope, zero. They had their information from God (or something) and preached it to the organization without wanting to hear any feedback? — ssu

Considering I was a manager, I can tell you that the answer is easy: of course they listen to their workers. Sometimes they even become friends. I've worked with people I like and don't like. Staff meetings were frequent.

This is all nice to talk about, I suppose. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I was talking about before.

Sorry, but this is like listening to a fairytale. So much has been written about it that I don't know where to begin other than to refer you to Ha-Joon Chang, David Harvey, Lynn Stout, William Lazonick, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gary Gerstle, etc. -- just off the top of my head. — Xtrix

And you believe people haven't written about the virtues of a free capitalist economy? You could list a hundred writers, in the end its about the rational arguments, so lets stick to those and not to lists of names.

The state subsidizing and bailing out industries, from defense contracts and Big Ag to publicly funded research/development to tax breaks, the state is there constantly. They lobby the state for what they want, and they know they need a very large corporate nanny state to survive. Free markets serve as a great cover for everyone else, as they run to pick up their government bailouts. A nice story. — Xtrix

You can characterize it any way you like. You'll struggle to find a freer system anywhere else - and yet that system in its current shape is crucially flawed. Clearly, the answer to those flaws it not more government, and neither is it to end private ownership.

That would be communism, which already has been tried and it has failed several times.

The "certain degree of choice" is also an illusion. The "choice" between a Ford and a Chevy, or a thousand brands of toothpaste. That's supposed to demonstrate the wonders of the "free market" -- all the wonderful choices we have. — Xtrix

You would've preferred to live in the Soviet Union? There the government makes the choices for you. Your housing, your occupation, your one type of bread that's available, etc. There the impoverished worker indeed has no alternatives.


Your position doesn't make any sense. On the one hand you reel against the terrible economic freedoms, and how those freedoms are responsible for all the terrible things that befall people in society, and on the other hand you deny such freedoms exist! So what is it going to be?

(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose. — Xtrix

And I've repeatedly argued this type of argument throws all sense of proportion out of the window. The idea we're freer to choose the country we live in than we are to choose our occupation is just silly.

Now, you say when there's "sufficiently high cost," it's no longer voluntary -- even without the threat of violence. — Xtrix

No, when someone says "Work for me or starve to death", I think that's clearly coercion.

To be absolutely clear: if you understand the absurdity of my claim, you should understand the absurdity of yours. — Xtrix

What exactly do you believe I am claiming?

I have no issue in maintaining a sense of proportion. There's a significant difference between an average worker who has plenty of choice regarding his occupation, and someone who is economically completely cornered.


We can't treat those the same, as you would try to treat choice of work and choice of nationality the same.


One does not choose what country they are born in, the country in which they build their existence and roots, and the laws to which they are subjected.

That people may eventually be in a position to change that conditions does not change government's essential nature - violence and coercion.

Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system. — Xtrix

Nonsense. You're free to do all of those things. Worker-owned/run enterprises? How many people don't work independently for themselves or in small groups?

All of those things are out of reach if one doesn't have any good ideas, initiative or a desire to incur the risk of investment.

And I believe here we are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the anti-capitalist idea - that building a business is something that should magically happen to us, without any effort, without any intellectual effort to produce a good idea, without any investments that incur risk. It reeks of entitlement.

If you want to have stability, no responsibility and no risk, you're free to be a "wage slave", whatever that means. And even in those situations a person can grow if they want to, but if they work resentfully, believing they deserve more without actually working for it, believing that because they work a simple job, there are no skills for them to develop there, it won't get them very far and in this case their supposed poverty is self-imposed.

You have this master or that master -- or starvation. That's the choice. — Xtrix

That's not the choice for an average worker. What a caricature. It's very telling that your argument rests on such a skewed view of what the average working person looks like.

What you describe is the choice for someone who is socially and economically completely cornered and has nothing to fall back on. As far as I know there are many charitable or government-run organisations that ensure that even such a person does not have to fear starvation - and that is a good thing.

We wouldn't say that taking kids away from abusive families is the only solution to child abuse -- we want to end child abuse. — Xtrix

You're now going to compare workers to abused children?

Very characteristic that you should choose this metaphor, because it showcases exactly what is wrong with a state-centric solution to all perceived problems. People are not children, and they don't need a parent-government to guide their life's choices.

I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do. — Xtrix

See my point about the costs incurred by business-owners.

But why are you not free to set up a business according to your ideal? It sounds wonderful - all that's left is for you to take your idea to the market.

Actually, I'm sure there already are plenty of businesses that operate more or less on that concept.

When applied to a large scale it probably will run into the problem that the larger the democracy, the less efficient it becomes. The only reason states can get away with being democratically run is because states can get away with being extremely inefficient. Businesses can't. States have a monopoly on their violent trade, after all.


So what then? Would you like government to impose this democratic system on business, even if it is completely inefficient? This is again sounding more and more like full-blown communism.

It's worth noting that while history's capitalist projects could not provide everything, it's pretty clear that history's communist projects failed to provide anything.

I absolutely apply it to myself. I'm in this country voluntarily. — Xtrix

Then what is this rant about employment and wage slavery about? All of it is voluntary in your view. What is the problem?

By the time one even has the chance to leave a job, usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that job. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. — Xtrix

You have a chance to work towards leaving your job from the moment you accept it. The same does not apply to a child that's born in a certain country. In fact, the child never accepts anything. The two aren't remotely comparable.

And at the same time, if a worker truly is in a situation that is comparable - that from the moment of their working life they were press-ganged into a job that they could somehow never leave, in which they cannot accumulate any wealth or learn any skills that could provide him with an alternative, I would have no problem acknowledging that is problematic and obviously not considered as voluntary. I strongly disagree with your attempt to generalize this idea, though.

True, you can argue that it's technically voluntary -- and that's true -- but it overlooks so much as to be callous. — Xtrix

For the average worker it's true - it's completely voluntary.

For some people living in dire poverty it is no longer true, and overlooking that would be callous, but that is something I have never argued for.

So if you don't believe your own words, you may now also stop pretending that you're representing mine.

You're still free to leave. No one said it was easy, and no one is coercing you through threat of violence to stay. — Xtrix

Of course I am. I'm bound to my system, my nationality, by many laws. If I were to ditch all of that by burning my identity papers and crossing a border somewhere, I'd be an outlaw.

If it were the case I could do so without any legal (that is to say violent/coercive) penalty, I would agree. People in the 18th - 19th century were free to get on a boat and travel to the United States, for example.

My point is the determine whether the use of force/power/authority/control/domination is legitimate or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Mostly it isn't -- it's a hard test to pass -- but it's possible. — Xtrix

Legitimate implies lawful - I can agree to an extent.

I believe both physical force and non-physical power or control need to abide by laws, preferably laws which are 'set in stone' in a constitution, clearly delineating the rights of citizens.

Preferably set in stone, precisely because government cannot be allowed to seep into the cracks. If it is allowed to do so, it will pervert the system in its favor over time.
___________________

I didn't say just, I said legitimate. — Xtrix

I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times. — Xtrix

The reason it is relevant, is because legitimacy (lawfulness) can be tested independent of government, since all are equal before the law.

Societal notions of justice cannot in my view legitimize violence.

But I skipped this one because I don't want to have a length debate on Friedman here. I intend to start a thread about the man in the future. — Xtrix

I'm looking forward to it. :ok:

You'll struggle to find a freer system anywhere else — Tzeentch

Since free markets don’t exist, and nearly every country is a state-capitalist one — often called mixed economies — this statement is just meaningless. Might as well say we’re the greatest country on earth, despite some flaws. A nice mythology, but impossible to measure.

That would be communism, which already has been tried and it has failed several times. — Tzeentch

More myth. Neither the Soviet Union nor China are really communist, as even you’ve mentioned— and neither really failed, incidentally.

Friedman-type “free enterprise” systems have been tried, however — and failed very badly indeed.

Clearly, the answer to those flaws it not more government, — Tzeentch

Since the flaws — like the crash of 2008 — was largely due to insane behavior by an industry that was deregulated— Yeah I’d say the answer is more Government. Ditto for monopolies that inevitably arise over and over again.

Funny to see people double down, though. The push for “free markets” results in failure, and the answer is “I guess they weren’t free enough!” Meanwhile during the era of tight banking regs, there were no crashes. But since the government can do no right, it must have been something else. Market fundamentalism 101.

Sorry— not convincing.

Your position doesn't make any sense. On the one hand you reel against the terrible economic freedoms, and how those freedoms are responsible for all the terrible things that befall people in society, and on the other hand you deny such freedoms exist! So what is it going to be? — Tzeentch

What freedoms? The freedom to be a a wage slave or starve to death? That freedom? Or the freedom to choose between a Dodge and a Ford?

No, I don’t say these things don’t exist. Calling it “freedom of choice” is ridiculous, of course— much like your use of “voluntary.” But still — as phenomena, they exist. No one is denying it.

(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose.
— Xtrix

And I've repeatedly argued this type of argument throws all sense of proportion out of the window. The idea we're freer to choose the country we live in than we are to choose our occupation is just silly. — Tzeentch

I never once said that. So I’ll point you to what I said, yet again, and encourage you to read it until you understand it. I’ve been as clear as I can be. It’s interesting to watch this, however— you simply won’t allow yourself to understand it. Pyschologically interesting.

No, when someone says "Work for me or starve to death", I think that's clearly coercion. — Tzeentch

No one says that.

There's a significant difference between an average worker who has plenty of choice regarding his occupation, and someone who is economically completely cornered. — Tzeentch

And tens of millions of people in the US, and hundreds of millions across the globe, are in the latter camp. You and others want to pretend they’re in the former— but that too is a convenient mythology for market fundamentalists.

And it says nothing about the system of wage slavery itself, nor the fundamentally immoral structure of corporations and employer-employee relation. So even if every employee had “plenty of choice,” it would say nothing about the system.

choice of work and choice of nationality the same. — Tzeentch

They’re not the same. I never once said they were. But both can be considered voluntary in your sense. If no one is putting a gun to your head, or even saying “work or starve” (which doesn’t happen), then you’re free to leave your job. Thus it’s a voluntary agreement.

That people may eventually be in a position to change that conditions does not change government's essential nature - violence and coercion. — Tzeentch

And the fact that someone can be in a position to change their jobs does not change capitalism’s essential nature — exploitation and economic means of coercion.

Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system.
— Xtrix

Nonsense. You're free to do all of those things. — Tzeentch

You’re free to go to the moon, too.

The fact that you think people have the option not to work for wages because small businesses exist is laughable. It’s just that easy… to market fundamentalists.

So far this is like corresponding with libertarian cliches.

All of those things are out of reach if one doesn't have any good ideas, initiative or a desire to incur the risk of investment. — Tzeentch

:lol:

Those stupid, lazy people with no drive! If only they took more risk and tried harder— then they too could be a Jeff Bezos.

Good lord.

And I believe here we are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the anti-capitalist idea - that building a business is something that should magically happen to us, without any effort, without any intellectual effort to produce a good idea, without any investments that incur risk. It reeks of entitlement. — Tzeentch

Yeah, because that’s definitely what’s happening. Stupid, lazy, entitled people with no drive looking for handouts.

Cue Jeffrey Lebowski.

If you want to have stability, no responsibility and no risk, you're free to be a "wage slave", whatever that means. And even in those situations a person can grow if they want to, but if they work resentfully, believing they deserve more without actually working for it, believing that because they work a simple job, there are no skills for them to develop there, it won't get them very far and in this case their supposed poverty is self-imposed. — Tzeentch

Stupid, lazy, entailed, and with self-imposed poverty.

In other words: no one to blame but themselves. Got it. Thanks for not concealing your pathological worldview — appreciated. I’m happy to have helped smoke it out.

I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do.
— Xtrix

See my point about the costs incurred by business-owners. — Tzeentch

:lol:

:up:

I’ll skip the rest. Not interested in cliches I’ve heard a thousand times before. Be well.

The real conundrum seems to elude our socialists.

It is very easy to vilify the other side if one believes the choice is between the socialist heaven and the liberal hell. After all, how could one consciously choose hell over heaven?

However, Nirvana, dear socialists, is not for this world, and our choice is not between heaven and hell. Our choices pertain to the limbo we find ourselves in.

And our fundamental choice is simple - it is between government control, the medium of which is coercion, and individual control, the medium of which is capital.

The real question is not whether we want our saintly leaders to deliver us from evil through benevolent policies.

The real question is whether we want the Jeff Bezoses of this world to discharge their power through coercion or through capital.

Those are the two flavors we may choose for our shit sandwich, and one glance at history should make the answer of that question simple. To answer the former would mean a leap back in time, back to the era of absolutists, which mankind has spent thousands of years trying to wrestle itself free from.

When the thread has been reduced to libertarian platitudes, it's officially dead.

“Capitalism” is a socialist bugaboo, and isn’t the mark of any one system. There has not been any regime that was not concerned with the ownership and management of capital, including the most collectivist and centralized of regimes, the difference being only that collectivism transfers the ownership and management of capital from private hands to the hands of the State.

Statism is the prevailing orthodoxy, and that’s the primary ingredient in all the shit sandwiches we’re eating these days.