What are you talking about? It's not some "skin in the game," it's a business that the workers control outright. Businesses make profits and declare bankruptcy all the time, regardless of who's running it. What's the difference? — Xtrix

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. New, inexperienced employees could be permanently damaging their financial future.

I may be wrong, but isn't the whole point of filing for bankruptcy to get off the hook for debt, and the entire purpose of the limited liability that comes from incorporation to protect the owners from being on the hook for the company's debt?

For a sole proprietorship or partnership or something, yes, the owner and company are the same and the assets of the owner are the company's assets that can be repossessed or foreclosed upon when they file for bankruptcy to cover as much as possible of the outstanding debt. In an LLC or C-corp or other limited company it's different.

“Bankruptcy offers an individual or business a chance to start fresh by forgiving debts that simply cannot be paid while giving creditors a chance to obtain some measure of repayment based on the individual's or business's assets available for liquidation. In theory, the ability to file for bankruptcy benefits the overall economy by allowing people and companies a second chance to gain access to credit and by providing creditors with a portion of debt repayment. Upon the successful completion of bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is relieved of the debt obligations that were incurred prior to filing for bankruptcy.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bankruptcy.asp

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. New, inexperienced employees could be permanently damaging their financial future. — BitconnectCarlos

Who said anything about "new, inexperienced employees"? The fact that your mind goes immediately to a scenario like this, where "workers control the business" equates somehow to "inexperienced employees" is very revealing, and pretty standard.

Tell the Mondragon Corporation about how it's not possible to do what they do, or how damaging it is to their financial futures. Those "inexperienced workers" will be happy to hear from you.

And then there's this:



Workers are completely capable of controlling the companies they work for; they are the companies. This doesn't mean there is no longer any division of labor or leadership, or even that all wages are equal. Nothing like that whatsoever. It simply means that it is run -- shockingly -- democratically: the managers are elected, and decisions are not confined to 20 or so major shareholders. Nothing radical about this. And no, you won't find that it all collapses without the capitalist owners. The workers are perfectly capable of running the company -- why? Because they already do it.

And then there's this: — Xtrix

isn't the whole point of filing for bankruptcy to get off the hook for debt — Pfhorrest

Is this what you mean?

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a long and expensive process and all debts still need to be paid. You aren't off the hook for the debts just by declaring chapter 11. Even in an LLC owners can still be responsible for paying debts depending on specific actions that they take. An LLC doesn't 100% absolve the owners from any personal debts.

Who said anything about "new, inexperienced employees"? The fact that your mind goes immediately to a scenario like this, where "workers control the business" equates somehow to "inexperienced employees" is very revealing, and pretty standard. — Xtrix

Ok, I might have misunderstood you. When you say something like 'all workers should have ownership in the company' then yeah, obviously my mind goes to all the employees having that privilege. If that's not what you're saying then feel free to clarify.

I don't have anything against co-ops either. If a company wants to do that, that's fine. If you were to force every company to be structured like that that's where I'd take issue.

Yes. Along the the rest. So when the following is said, in response to "workers should be in control":

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. — BitconnectCarlos

the point is obvious. Or should be.

Ok, I might have misunderstood you. When you say something like 'all workers should have ownership in the company' then yeah, obviously my mind goes to all the employees having that privilege. If that's not what you're saying then feel free to clarify.

I don't have anything against co-ops either. If a company wants to do that, that's fine. If you were to force every company to be structured like that that's where I'd take issue. — BitconnectCarlos

I am talking about all employees, yes. All employees run the company. How they choose to structure it, who they assign various responsibilities or leadership roles to, etc., are their business. Votes are conducted for various positions, and everything is decided democratically.

I also didn't mention "ownership."

It's not about "forcing" companies to do anything, no.

I am talking about all employees, yes. All employees run the company. How they choose to structure it, who they assign various responsibilities or leadership roles to, etc., are their business. Votes are conducted for various positions, and everything is decided democratically. — Xtrix

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll say if an owner wants to structure his corporation like that I don't have any problem with that, it's the owner's choice. I believe the socialist vision involves actual ownership by the proletariat, so all you seem to be doing here is recommending a certain corporate governance model, right? That's fine by me, when you have your own company you're free to tell your employees that they can vote whoever they want to be in charge.

When you think about it, there are all sorts of entropic forces rotting wealth. What forces it to go the other way? Isn't it that in a free society, there's nothing to stop people who just put their whole souls into acquisition? — frank

When I look at it however, I see that in the country i live in, wealth survives in dynasties ofttimes for many hundreds of years. Typically, social mobility stems from revolutions, political or technological. In a stable economy, money is the best way to make money.

When I look at it however, I see that in the country i live in, wealth survives in dynasties ofttimes for many hundreds of years. — unenlightened

They control the military, they make the rules. Physical force creates stability so that money actually has meaning and value.

But the military (or police), in the name of stability, guard the status quo.

In ancient times there would be an epic tale that explains why the upper class has the blessings of the gods.

That they're ingenious and hard working is part of a protestant epic story where the hero is the self-made man?

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll say if an owner wants to structure his corporation like that I don't have any problem with that, it's the owner's choice. — BitconnectCarlos

No, you're not understanding. There is no "owner." That's exactly the point. The "owners" (if you want to call them that) are the workers themselves. The company is controlled and run democratically, by the workers themselves -- minus a bunch of major shareholders who produce exactly nothing, and whose privilege is obtained by legal maneuvering.

That's fine by me, when you have your own company you're free to tell your employees that they can vote whoever they want to be in charge. — BitconnectCarlos

It's educational to watch how difficult it is for people to even comprehend this. Might as well be speaking Swahili.

The workers already run the businesses, but don't "own" them (and don't make any of the major decisions). The proposal is simple: get rid of owners. It's not up to them to give "permission" to take over the businesses. The workers are the businesses.

I was thinking this over in relation to @Pfhorrest and his hypothetical world where we don’t have to consider the transition from here to there, that it just exists.

If everything that existed now, in terms of business, factories, etc., was collectively owned what business do you think would remain and what would go? What would survive and what wouldn’t. What would happen to Goldman Sachs for instance, or coal mines? Apart from workers owning the capital how would the landscape change?

The "owners" (if you want to call them that) are the workers themselves. — Xtrix

Back to my original question then: Wouldn't all workers then be on the hook for debts in the case of bankruptcy then? Also, lets say there's 10 workers and 7 of them vote to take out a loan, do the other 3 have to chip in?

The workers are the businesses. — Xtrix

Sure, and the CEO just sits up in his gold suite all day with his top hat and goes swimming in piles of gold coins while the workers do all the hard work. Apparently higher level employees like the founders and CFO or CTO just don't do anything all day.

If everything that existed now, in terms of business, factories, etc., was collectively owned what business do you think would remain and what would go? What would survive and what wouldn’t. What would happen to Goldman Sachs for instance, or coal mines? Apart from workers owning the capital how would the landscape change? — Brett

Good question. Obviously I can't say for sure, but my hunch is that a lot would change, but for the better. But not necessarily in terms of what is produced, or the daily routines. In other words, you could get rid of all the major shareholders in the country right now, and nearly everything would run exactly the same on the ground. No one would be the wiser.

Take Wal Mart. You can imagine that the Waltons disappear. What happens to Wal Mart? Does the shipping and receiving of goods change? Do the workers who provide security, stock the shelves, manage the scheduling, oversee the inventory, work as cash register, etc., stop dead in their tracks? Of course not.

Sure, maybe coal mines dramatically change. But if the workers are making the decisions, I'd imagine the working conditions, compensation, etc., would improve. If workers were in charge, would they choose to outsource jobs? Would they choose to shut a factory down because it didn't make enough profit, etc? As for Goldman Sachs -- most of these large financial institutions produce very little, and make most of their money from complex manipulations, moving money around, etc. So maybe they go under...good riddance.

Back to my original question then: Wouldn't all workers then be on the hook for debts in the case of bankruptcy then? Also, lets say there's 10 workers and 7 of them vote to take out a loan, do the other 3 have to chip in? — BitconnectCarlos

Are you unaware that small businesses and co-ops exist? Are the owners of a local maintenance company not "on the hook" for bankruptcy? What happened to those "on the hook" for bankruptcy over at GM in 2009? Would the result had made much of a difference if it were worker-owned? Why not first ask that question.

The workers are the businesses.
— Xtrix

Sure, and the CEO just sits up in his gold suite all day with his top hat and goes swimming in piles of gold coins while the workers do all the hard work. Apparently higher level employees like the founders and CFO or CTO just don't do anything all day. — BitconnectCarlos

The CEOs are chosen by the board of directors, and sometimes serve as board chairs alongside CEO duties.

No one is saying "higher level" employees aren't workers. They are. And they have their own set of responsibilities based on their capacities, interests, talent, etc. Just as every state has state representatives and state senators that the people vote to send to the capital, the employees should vote for their leadership -- from the CEO on down. Their compensation should be appropriately adjusted, with certain limits (at Mondragon, I think it's no more than 8 or 10X higher than the lowest compensation). There are plenty of good supervisors, administrators, etc. Why should they be chosen based on a handful of major shareholders rather than the people who actually produce for and (essentially) run the company?

It’s very interesting as a thought experiment. I was really wondering, though I didn’t make it clear, how the business landscape would change morally. What would wither away and what would thrive? Of course I’m not expecting you to make a list but I’d like to know what others think.

It’s very interesting as a thought experiment. I was really wondering, though I didn’t make it clear, how the business landscape would change morally. What would either away and what would thrive? — Brett

In that case, as I mentioned, I think we would see drastic changes for the better. And it's not because I think the major shareholders (the owners) are evil. It's not that I think they outsource jobs, shut down factories, lay of thousands of workers, replace workers with automation, cut or cap overtime, try to keep wages down, find ways around paying benefits, agree to huge mergers, use tax havens and other loopholes to avoid taxes, etc. etc., because they're sadists. They probably hate doing it. But the very nature of the system is to maximize profit and market share, and to continually grow/expand. If you don't do that, you're not fulfilling your obligations, according to the game we're all playing.

If instead the workers get to make the decisions, almost none of those things would happen. It's better for them, better for the towns and cities they operate in, better for the environment, and so on. Now, would this mean they won't be financially successful? Not at all. I think the difference financially would be a kind of "natural" cap on how much profit is enough.

There are real world examples, too. I could get you the details if you'd like, because I don't remember many specifics, but there was a scenario within the last 30 years or so where I believe a car factory was going to be shut down because it wasn't profitable enough for Ford or whoever, and the workers of the factory offered to buy it from Ford and then run it themselves -- because it was still making a profit, just not up to Ford's standards. Ford refused to do so, and the factory was shut down.

This goes on a lot, and it demonstrates the rot in our current system. There's really no good reason for it. But it'll go on if people are not aware of alternatives and allow it to continue.

When I mentioned about how things would pan out morally I wasn’t thinking about it in terms of profits and expansion, but in actual terms of what was morally right to trade in. For instance in relation to an event like climate change how might people, workers/owners, view coal mines as a business venture? This would consequently have an impact on where people live and so on. I find it interesting to consider just how things might evolve, instead of being transformed.

For instance in relation to an event like climate change how might people, workers/owners, view coal mines as a business venture? — Brett

It really can't be separated from talk of profits and expansion, because that's what drives the decisions of the owners, at the expense of everything else, including the environment -- local or global. Climate change is a good example fo a situation where, if it weren't for nihilistic greed and addiction to expansion/growth, we could have the situation solved already.

The system itself needs to be changed. But that's in the long run. That won't happen in our lifetimes. A step towards that, however, is a move towards the co-op model, expansion of unions, etc.

Are the owners of a local maintenance company not "on the hook" for bankruptcy? What happened to those "on the hook" for bankruptcy over at GM in 2009? Would the result had made much of a difference if it were worker-owned? Why not first ask that question. — Xtrix

The reason I brought this issue up is because I'm trying to save the workers, especially the low level workers, in the case that a bankruptcy occurs. During a bankruptcy you can have your personal property/assets seized. There absolutely are advantages in certain cases to not being the owner, not the least of which is that you aren't responsible to attend board meetings or attend to administrative work.

No one is saying "higher level" employees aren't workers. They are. And they have their own set of responsibilities based on their capacities, interests, talent, etc. Just as every state has state representatives and state senators that the people vote to send to the capital, the employees should vote for their leadership -- from the CEO on down. Their compensation should be appropriately adjusted, with certain limits (at Mondragon, I think it's no more than 8 or 10X higher than the lowest compensation). There are plenty of good supervisors, administrators, etc. Why should they be chosen based on a handful of major shareholders rather than the people who actually produce for and (essentially) run the company? — Xtrix

If that's just your preference in terms of a corporate governance model that's fine. We all have our own preferences for how things ought to be ran. I personally don't believe in any one, universal perfect corporate governance model and in any case we're free to discuss the pluses and minuses of various models. As long as no one is forcing people to structure their companies this way then I'm fine with you having this preference.

As long as no one is forcing people to structure their companies this way then I'm fine with you having this preference. — BitconnectCarlos

I believe the point is that the present system is forcing the people who actually run the companies -- the workers -- to accept the management preferences of a small group of people who may or may not actually be doing any of the work of running the company. The alternative being presented is to cut out that undemocratic imposition and let the people who actually run the companies, the workers, vote on how to run the companies.

I believe the point is that the present system is forcing the people who actually run the companies -- the workers -- to accept the management preferences of a small group of people who may or may not actually be doing any of the work of running the company. — Pfhorrest

The board of directors are voted on by the shareholders, who certainly have a stake in the success of the company because they're funding it. There could also be workers on the board itself. The composition of the board will vary from company to company with some certainly better run than others. Ideally there'd be both workers and investors who can work cooperatively to make the company run well. Even if a worker isn't an in official high position they can still often be influential in how the company is run.

https://commongood.cc/reader/the-one-percents-50-trillion-dollar-tab/

"A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation. According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

Price and Edwards calculate that the cumulative tab for our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality had grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018. At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year, that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020. That’s $50 trillion that would have gone into the paychecks of working Americans had inequality held constant—$50 trillion that would have built a far larger and more prosperous economy—$50 trillion that would have enabled the vast majority of Americans to enter this pandemic far more healthy, resilient, and financially secure."

The 1% are parasites.

The 1% are parasites. — StreetlightX

Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, or does being rich make you a certain kind of person? There are probably at least a few causal relationships in each direction, but I would suspect that wealth has a far greater impact on personality than personally has on wealth, because there are many other systemic factors besides personality that are causally influential on wealth, but most of the factors that causally influence personality are in turn themselves influenced by wealth. — Pfhorrest

This would be the general consensus on this OP I would think.

So if wealth has the greater impact on personality than personality has on wealth then we can assume wealth creates parasites. If that’s true then anyone is susceptible to this.

Do you think that might say something more about human nature than the wealthy themselves?

It is absolutely the case that anyone is susceptible to this. The goal is to design social mechanisms which blunt or neutralize the effects, rather than entrench or exacerbate them - as exists currently. Separate wealth from power, or better, invert the relationship between wealth and power - the more wealth you have, the less say you have exercising power. Political enfranchisement should run from the bottom-up, not the top-down: i.e. the democratic exercise of power. It's neither 'human nature', nor wealth alone which is 'determinant': it is the political structure of society, which can be made otherwise. And we know this because of the humongous exercise of pollical power among the 1% who continually mobilize to ensure their own reproduction.

It is absolutely the case that anyone is susceptible to this. The goal is to design social mechanisms which blunt or neutralize the effects, rather than entrench of exacerbate them - as exists currently. — StreetlightX

I understand the point of view of Marxists and others who see human nature as the problem, that “conceives of human nature as composed of 'tendencies', 'drives', 'essential powers', and 'instincts' to act in order to satisfy 'needs' for external objectives.” (Wikipedia) and as a consequence believe we need to create a new man in order to manage his more destructive tendencies.

The goal is to design social mechanisms which blunt or neutralize the effects, — StreetlightX

I can think of a number of ways this could be done. But they all seem to require regulations imposed from above. And it seems to be the the more you regulate human nature the more problems arise in another form which requires more regulation.

Even now we have powerful influences in education and public life about how we should think about things, about inclusivity, gender and race, and all with the best intentions. But in fact the objective is to change how we think about things, which is always, finally, enacted with regulations that carry, as a final incentive, the threat of the law. So then more regulations.

This is where my concern lies about imposing constructed ideas about what we should be as opposed to who we are.

The world as it is, is structured through and through by 'regulations imposed from above', enforced by continually exercised violence along with the threat of it. There is arguably no point in human history in which that power has been exercised to the degree that it currently is, on the scale and reach that currently exists. To worry about that is to worry that the sky is blue. Global capitalism has been the biggest human engineering project ever undertaken, and it's not only still going but accelerating.

I was about to add that I understand those who see the only way out is to destroy the system. It can’t be changed by election or negotiation. There are those who think the answer lies with the consumer, that if they stop buying they will starve corporation to reduce prices, but that won’t happen, instead you’ll get more unemployment.

There is arguably no point in human history in which that power has been exercised to the degree that it currently is, on the scale and reach that currently exists. — StreetlightX

It’s true that power may not have been exercised on the scale and reach that currently exists, but we experience it as individuals and from that point of view this power has been applied in equal or more brutal terms than we are experiencing it now. So it’s possible for me as an individual to see more of my rights denied for the sake of the “new man”.