That doesn't mean the system consistently meets its intended purpose 100% of the time, not by far. You can cheat, get ahead as an individual by cutting corners and actually harming the company and its future, which at least for that specific scenario makes said system counterproductive. Of course, if that happens to be the case and the company folds, most CEOs as you say have greater benefits than standard employees and those standard employees can often "just find another job" especially if they have done a great job and have an outstanding record that should and will raise the eyes of potential recruiters and employers. Nobody is really shafted too greatly, at least in an irrecoverable way.

Many of the anti-capitalism arguments seem to involve the whole "daddy's money" ie. inherited wealth/opportunities thing. Someone, regardless as to whether he built his empire from scratch and hard, honest work or not, who has a kid is more than likely to be "very well off" from essentially none of their own doing. This is natural and a very real biological response.
Reveal

But it's not about the how it's about the why. Just because you happen to be a rich and intelligent, hardworking CEO who made millions out of a few dollars doesn't mean your kid is going to be able to maintain your legacy or even not be abjectly horrible at management. A stranger might simply be better. For the company, your sense of "peace" as you close your eyes and breathe your last breaths in old age (some people need concrete evidence of their longevity to comprehend immortality and thus spirituality, I was like that and in many ways still am so I can't talk down). — Outlander

I’d like to see how people like @Bitter Crank and@StreetlightX answer this type of response. I think the left tends to disregard this kind of response because it doesn’t t speak to their pint. They rather focus on third world exploitation because it is more stark as to possible exploitive practices or consequences. StreetlightX did mention lowering wages and benefits which I’d like to see a response from Outsider to for valid observations.

honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views:

Just because you happen to be a rich and intelligent, hardworking CEO who made millions out of a few dollars doesn't mean your kid is going to be able to maintain your legacy or even not be abjectly horrible at management. A stranger might simply be better. For the company, your sense of "peace" as you close your eyes and breathe your last breaths in old age (some people need concrete evidence of their longevity to comprehend immortality and thus spirituality, I was like that and in many ways still am so I can't talk down)

The reason is because to me it reveals just how merciless and unsustainable the capitalist system really is. As you said, Mr Monopoly can rake in millions, but maybe stocks will go down, the economy crashes, and Mr Monopoly Jr ends up committing suicide because he’ll leave his kids with nothing. Marx and tons of other left wing theorists have pointed out that this constant cycle of booms and busts is unsustainable for everyone, including the bourgeoise. Hell, contemporary vulgar socialism tends to demonize the bourgeoise as much as they can, but even Marx pointed out how they’re alienated from the world and estranged from labour just as much as a worker is but in differing ways. A core tenant of socialism is that everyone would get what they need and deserve a comfortable life that isn’t constantly threatened by capitalism’s inherent contradictions.

If we address what should be the case, instead of what is the case (I assume we are doing that), I can think of no reason why relatively few people should make and retain huge amounts of money while others do not, and in fact have much less. There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition.

If it isn't, though, we have to consider the worthiness of having a great deal more money and assets than others in a world of limited resources with an increasing population. I think that the very rich are the equivalent of gluttons or hoarders in such a world--in our world--because their conduct is so selfish that they strive to possess and retain much, much more than they could possibly need to live comfortable lives (not just survive) where others merely survive, or live in need and want. Gluttons and hoarders aren't admirable; they aren't moral. We should stop thinking they are.

honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views: — Albero

The only thing I know is that I know nothing. Except what people who are no longer here that I can't ask for an explanation in greater detail say. I know they know something...

It comes down to incentive. Nobody really wants to get out of bed and go to work. That is to say every man would prefer to wake up at the time of his choosing, greeted by beautiful women (or if you're a chick, beautiful men I suppose) being served an elegant and hearty breakfast and various other delights. Then to be waited on hand and foot throughout the day, lunch, chores, errands, arrangements, entertainment, etc. That's normal. Until you realize every person is a person who wants or at least deserves no less than what you desire on a whim. Without degrading this world any further, and acknowledging all it's potential for pleasure and true contentedness, we live in a world of death, rot, plague, and decay which produces a natural response and that response is often greed, indifference, cruelty, and malice. So. What do we do? Lay around all day, perhaps committing acts of unspeakable cruelty to continue this hell or work and try to alleviate these things for ourselves and others? The choice is clear. No matter your preferred economic model.

There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition. — Ciceronianus

But the argument isn’t that they’re deserving of rewards for already having money but due to their efforts to initially grow their business, they deserve the rewards.

Lay around all day, perhaps committing acts of unspeakable cruelty to continue this hell or work and try to alleviate these things for ourselves and others? The choice is clear. No matter your preferred economic model. — Outlander

I think perhaps the point for hardcore socialists is that this economic model would be best to alleviate these things. The indifference, cruelty, and such is from capitalism and its actors and mechanisms.

I don’t think the concept of wage slavery adequately describes the relationship. The employer has never forced me to work against my will; I have never been bound to conditions without my consent; i am payed for my services; If I don’t like the conditions I can leave. There just isn’t enough slavery involved there to call it that. — NOS4A2

The terms, "wage slave" and "wage slavery" apply to system, not to individual workers, employers, or supervisors. Marx and Engels were not citing particular cases in the 1844 Communist Manifesto or later. They cite an American example during the period when literal slavery was an important economic factor and the exploitation of 'free labor' could be crude. "If a plantation owner needs his barn roof fixed, he can either hire an Irishman or direct a slave to do the repair. If the slave falls off the roof and dies, the owner is deprived of significant value. If the Irishman falls off the roof and dies, the owner loses nothing."

The way that "wage slavery" works today in a practically non-unionized work force is that employers, whether capitalists, governments, or non-profits have control of the economy and of the workforce. [workers are not unionized for a reason: employers have been waging a continuous war against unions. Put it this way: unionism didn't die out, it was murdered.]

Why aren't workers glad to spend 8 to 10 hours a day at a job? Because the terms of labor tend to be exploitative. In order to efficiently exploit labor, the workplace has to be controlled for as much efficiency and productivity as possible. In the system of capitalism, workers exist to produce profits and to reproduce themselves so that there will be more workers in the future. Workers enjoyment of life is not high on the capitalist to do list.

I'm retired. I spent the usual 40+ years in the work force. Sometimes jobs were fulfilling and enjoyable --maybe 10 years in all. Usually jobs were tolerable, but not great. Sometimes they were awful. It doesn't matter much whether one is a professional or not. What always was the case was that I as a worker had to have a job to live.

I appreciate the breakdown of the metaphor. I just do not see how it accurately describes any of the conditions, relations, or systems we’re talking about. I say this because I am unable to find an oppressive or coercive element that cannot be avoided here. And if we are supposed to be slaves to our own needs, I find it difficult to maintain that each of us are both the master and slave to ourselves.

Though it’s true that there are exploitative employers, the relationship isn’t inherently exploitative. In my own experience, whenever I’ve had to employ someone it was because I needed help with my work load, not because I intended to unfairly take advantage of someone for my own gain. The relationships were beneficial to all parties involved, as far as I’m concerned.

The only oppressive, coercive, and exploitative element in the relationship is the state. This relationship is far closer in character to chattel slavery than wage labor. They exploit mine and my employee’s labor by taking from our income. If we do not give them what they demand they subject us to force and coercion.

honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views:

The reason is because to me it reveals just how merciless and unsustainable the capitalist system really is. As you said, Mr Monopoly can rake in millions, but maybe stocks will go down, the economy crashes, and Mr Monopoly Jr ends up committing suicide because he’ll leave his kids with nothing. Marx and tons of other left wing theorists have pointed out that this constant cycle of booms and busts is unsustainable for everyone, including the bourgeoise. Hell, contemporary vulgar socialism tends to demonize the bourgeoise as much as they can, but even Marx pointed out how they’re alienated from the world and estranged from labour just as much as a worker is but in differing ways. A core tenant of socialism is that everyone would get what they need and deserve a comfortable life that isn’t constantly threatened by capitalism’s inherent contradictions.

If you look at a list of states that self-identify as socialist you’ll find an utterly abysmal track record when it comes to sustainability and mercy.

"Wage slavery" will seem like rhetorical overkill to lots of people, but it is a 'term of art' that socialists use to describe the terms of labor in the capitalist system. If you are of a mind to think that the relationship between you and the state is like chattel slavery, then you will not find the term useful. I suppose you are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialists, based on your view of taxation.

For the 10% of Americans who make up the prosperous "middle class" (a demographic located between the working class and the 1% of extremely wealthy people) your view is much more understandable. (The wealth requirement for entry into the middle class as I use it here is between $2,000,000 and $20,000,000, after which one is counted among the upper class.). There are about 16,000,000 adults who qualify.

People who have experienced a lot of personal success in their working experience (whether or not they broke $2,000,000 in assets) are much less likely to feel exploited. Many more working class people were able to experience a sense of success before 1973 than after. The post WWII economic boom tended to lift a lot of boats, and the working class experienced low inflation and good wage growth.

After 1973 (and continuing now) working people experienced a combination of inflation and stagnant wage growth which over time has reduced real income by up to 30%. Those most affected have experienced declining income, less steady employment, and more precarious economic circumstances.

Their loss has been a gain for the wealthier segments of society, so yes, if you are poorer it is really very easy to feel exploited and to feel like a wage slave.

Their loss has been a gain for the wealthier segments of society, so yes, if you are poorer it is really very easy to feel exploited and to feel like a wage slave. — Bitter Crank

Just wondering how would technology and products and services be distributed in your world? Right now it starts with the business owner employing workers. How would insubordination work in this world? In our current one they just get fired.

A socialist economy, just like any other, will not be simply wished into existence. It will have to be built up over time. A socialist economy, like any other, will need to be managed. In a socialist economy, selecting managers, coordinators, inspectors, and so on would have the approximate gravity of electing a government. It seems like a system of merit would be better than a system of popular election.

Socialists don't spend enough time thinking about questions like "how would technology and products and services be distributed". A common cop-out is to say that the workers in the future society will have to decide that. And so they shall, but believable socialism depends on believable plans now.

One way is a combination of market mechanisms and central / decentralized planning. Data workers, for instance would form work groups to conduct the necessary market research.

Basic needs in the various parts of a country can be derived from demographic information; information about:

A rising or falling birthrate
A rising or falling death rate
# of people within each decade of life
% of high school completion by county
% of trade school and college completion by state
# of people in the various skills pools (hospitals, railroads, warehousing, schools, farms, and so on
rate of chronic and acute diseases per county

Information about available physical resources is required: How much electricity, fresh water, natural gas, petroleum, metal ores, lumber, cement, sand, gravel, fiber, rubber, etc. is on hand or can be obtained.

A live inventory of production facilities is critical. For instance, how many canning factories are available; how many foundries; how carpet mills; how many chemical plants; how many steel mills; how many bus and railroad factories, how many clothing factories, how many pharmaceutical plants, how many food plants, etc. are available by county

Consumer research polling can determine what the interests and expectations of the population are in various regions for food, clothing, housing, education, employment, entertainment, medical care, and other preferences.

Once regional assessments of consumer needs and desires have been completed, this information can be distributed to work groups to bid on producing the needed or desired goods and services. Elected boards, assisted by work groups, would award contracts to work groups to produce goods and arrange for efficient distribution.

Needless to say, budgeting mechanisms would be required, along with the means to collect funds to finance work. Oversight needs exist to leadoff production and distribution bottlenecks, organizational failure, and so forth. An elected body of expert workers would be needed to conduct that essential oversight.

Oversight, coordination, planning, and intervention are governing activities, and before the whole process can begin, the citizens of the nation will need to authorize these governmental functions,

Socialism isn't supposed to be an austerity regime caused by ineptitude. It is supposed to deliver to its citizens the benefits produced by their labor. A successful socialist economy will succeed in delivering a fair distribution of goods to everyone. Does that mean that everyone can expect a luxury car, a big house, and expensive gadgetry? No. Needs and wants have to be satisfied within a long-range view of sustainability and fairness (something that ardent capitalists would rather not do).

What people should expect is that their needs for decent food, clothing, and shelter will be met; that they have the tools they need to achieve their aspirations (meaning education in its various forms). New technology must not be the possessions of the privileged; it must be made available on a shared basis fpr everyone. (Needless to say, socialists take a dim view of the existence of any privileged class.).

In a nutshell, start with good information and stay with good information to the end.

Does everything have to be planned? No.

Cultural workers do not need permission to form a theatrical troupe, an orchestra, a band, a poetry reading, an art show, a baseball game, or a rodeo. Neither should permission be needed to put on plays, concerts, games, or publishing. Yes, the facilities have to be arranged; maybe built. Large outlays require more community involvement. Building a rodeo in a PETA-strong community would probably be a provocation. Having an outdoor heavy metal concert facility next to a funeral home might not be appropriate (just going by current standards. In the future??? Maybe that will be the rage (shudder).

Inventors do not need permission to invent a really good method of cold fusion. Hey, if you can figure out how to make it work, great. You just invented a new way to fry an egg? Good for you, but just because you invented it, doesn't mean that it has to be produced. We already have 15 ways to fry eggs and we can not afford the production and environmental costs of yet another one.

Socialist joke:

Leader: After the revolution, there will be strawberries for all.
Peasant: But Leader, I don't like strawberries!
Leader: After the revolution, you will like strawberries ...[or else]

In a socialist economy, selecting managers, coordinators, inspectors, and so on would have the approximate gravity of electing a government. It seems like a system of merit would be better than a system of popular election. — Bitter Crank

Though there's nepotism, isn't that how we do things now? Those who went school for X (doctor, lawyer, engineer, programmer) get the benefits of Y money? Adept managers grow the company and bad ones get fired? That's not to say there aren't golden parachutes and bad managers that get through, but there are bottom lines and such for many folks who don't cut it.

One way is a combination of market mechanisms and central / decentralized planning. Data workers, for instance would form work groups to conduct the necessary market research. — Bitter Crank

Isn't that what marketing departments do? Isn't that what people do when they buy Facebook, Google, and other data?

nformation about available physical resources is required: How much electricity, fresh water, natural gas, petroleum, metal ores, lumber, cement, sand, gravel, fiber, rubber, etc. is on hand or can be obtained. — Bitter Crank

Don't companies and parts of the geographical and land management aspects of the government already do this?

A live inventory of production facilities is critical. For instance, how many canning factories are available; how many foundries; how carpet mills; how many chemical plants; how many steel mills; how many bus and railroad factories, how many clothing factories, how many pharmaceutical plants, how many food plants, etc. are available by county — Bitter Crank

Weren't these started by individuals through investments? Is this meant to take that property from them even though they put in the capital? They would say that is unfair. If that's the case, make your own facilities or something to that effect.

Consumer research polling can determine what the interests and expectations of the population are in various regions for food, clothing, housing, education, employment, entertainment, medical care, and other preferences. — Bitter Crank

Didn't the Soviet Union try to do this but failed with long bread lines, lack of variety, and unfilled stores?

Needless to say, budgeting mechanisms would be required, along with the means to collect funds to finance work. Oversight needs exist to leadoff production and distribution bottlenecks, organizational failure, and so forth. An elected body of expert workers would be needed to conduct that essential oversight. — Bitter Crank

Won't they just be the new managers? What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one?

Socialism isn't supposed to be an austerity regime caused by ineptitude. It is supposed to deliver to its citizens the benefits produced by their labor. A successful socialist economy will succeed in delivering a fair distribution of goods to everyone. Does that mean that everyone can expect a luxury car, a big house, and expensive gadgetry? No. Needs and wants have to be satisfied within a long-range view of sustainability and fairness (something that ardent capitalists would rather not do). — Bitter Crank

Understood.

n a nutshell, start with good information and stay with good information to the end. — Bitter Crank

Don't they say that market mechanisms fill the demands more efficiently because information is based on price rates where supply meets demand and such?

Leader: After the revolution, there will be strawberries for all.
Peasant: But Leader, I don't like strawberries!
Leader: After the revolution, you will like strawberries ...[or else] — Bitter Crank

But that says it all, doesn't it?

Cultural workers do not need permission to form a theatrical troupe, an orchestra, a band, a poetry reading, an art show, a baseball game, or a rodeo. Neither should permission be needed to put on plays, concerts, games, or publishing. Yes, the facilities have to be arranged; maybe built. Large outlays require more community involvement. Building a rodeo in a PETA-strong community would probably be a provocation. Having an outdoor heavy metal concert facility next to a funeral home might not be appropriate (just going by current standards. In the future??? Maybe that will be the rage (shudder).

Inventors do not need permission to invent a really good method of cold fusion. Hey, if you can figure out how to make it work, great. You just invented a new way to fry an egg? Good for you, but just because you invented it, doesn't mean that it has to be produced. We already have 15 ways to fry eggs and we can not afford the production and environmental costs of yet another one. — Bitter Crank

Who decides what gets made? Isn't that going right back to politburos and oligarchic dictatorships? 1984 and all that?

I guess Bitter, what I am getting at is, in a socialist world, it seems that because it is run by the same human personality-types, and because the functions are pretty much the same, not much changes. There is still a hierarchy. Things have to get made, people must do stuff or there will be consequences (they die).. They will need to rely on someone. Instead of the fiefdom, it is the larger dominion.. But have things changed somehow? How so? How do people decide how much to do, when to do it, and the like? What we have now is management that sets guidelines that they can just fire people.. What does it look like for insubordination under this socialist regime?

Though it’s true that there are exploitative employers, the relationship isn’t inherently exploitative. In my own experience, whenever I’ve had to employ someone it was because I needed help with my work load, not because I intended to unfairly take advantage of someone for my own gain. The relationships were beneficial to all parties involved, as far as I’m concerned. — NOS4A2

I'd like to know, what makes one person able and willing to be an owner, and another only able to work for them? @Bitter Crank, I think this gets to the heart of things here of what NOS's answer is.. We should be white on rice if any answer comes up as "deserves", "is better", or "luck".. all this seems self-serving and/or arbitrary.. We should all be lucky enough to be owners :D.

One way is a combination of market mechanisms and central / decentralized planning. Data workers, for instance would form work groups to conduct the necessary market research.
— Bitter Crank

Isn't that what marketing departments do? Isn't that what people do when they buy Facebook, Google, and other data? — schopenhauer1

Data is data. It might be as useful in a socialist economy as in a capitalist one to know how the consumption of dark green leafy vegetables is correlated with miles ridden on a bike per day or hours spent in bars. Using that data, A central planner could, for instance, improve the nutritional status of beer drinkers by ordering a stalk of kale stuffed into an individual's mugs of beer. If you don't eat it, you don't get ore beer.

If you accept the notion that financial success is attainable thorough individual choice, which rests heavily upon motivation, education, persistence, and choosing a lucrative field, many of these concerns dissolve.

If, on the other hand, you feel the system is rigged against success despite your doing the same things as those who are successful, the disparities are not acceptable.

I lean toward the first paragraph, although I realize my chances of being a CEO are slim, but I do believe I can, through my choices, live a genuinely happy life.

It's clear that poverty is miserable and that a certain income is necessary for survival and basic happiness, but beyond that, additional wealth provides minimal extra happiness.

It's for that reason I have little concern over what a CEO makes, an NBA player makes, or how much the neighbor makes. I'm all aboard for providing assistance to the needy, and I realize that aid will likely be paid by those with the most to contribute, but as far as having animosity for the rich, they're not on my radar. What's important to them isn't important to me.

Data is data. It might be as useful in a socialist economy as in a capitalist one to know how the consumption of dark green leafy vegetables is correlated with miles ridden on a bike per day or hours spent in bars. Using that data, A central planner could, for instance, improve the nutritional status of beer drinkers by ordering a stalk of kale stuffed into an individual's mugs of beer. If you don't eat it, you don't get ore beer. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I am just trying to get at, how a socialist regime solves anything different than a capitalist one.. It sounds like you're saying that a socialist one would use it in a way for what's "best" for people rather than for the goals of making companies more profitable.. Some might say those profits translate to more targeted response to the differences and variety in consumer demand.. The socialist one seems to be one "right" way that all must comply with.

It's for that reason I have little concern over what a CEO makes, an NBA player makes, or how much the neighbor makes. I'm all aboard for providing assistance to the needy, and I realize that aid will likely be paid by those with the most to contribute, but as far as having animosity for the rich, they're not on my radar. What's important to them isn't important to me. — Hanover

Yes, you are pretty much representing this view here:

The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).

The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!". — schopenhauer1

and here:

As for the positions lower in the chain, they are grateful they are not getting paid minimum wage work. Competition for similar positions has made such that they simply want stable work that pays enough. They aren't stupid. They know their skillset is more generalized. They didn't go to school to learn code. They don't have advanced graphic design skills. They didn't learn electronic engineering. Rather, they can solve some problems moderately well, or they can process forms rather efficiently when they need to (let's say the tech support and customer service people). They are so removed from the business owner's business, that it doesn't really phase them how much they are making in comparison. Their only vision of "justice" here is maybe getting a yearly review where they can ask for a raise. There is no "tear down this hierarchy!" thinking here. It is being thankful for a job that pays above minimum and perhaps benefits. That is it. — schopenhauer1

CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. What is wrong with this arrangement? Things to consider:

1) The business owner (if a smaller business) gambled his own time, resources, and money (or debt) to generate the capital to start his/her business.

2) The workers are getting market-value salaries that sustain their survival and entertainment, rents/mortgages, food, clothes, HVAC, water, healthcare, car payments, disposable income for goods/services of all kinds.

3) The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers.

What is wrong with this arrangement? — schopenhauer1

There are a number of issues by premising your argument on this arrangement, but I'll cut to the chase. The socialist issue contra Capitalism isn't uniquely derived from problems of distribution, e.g. wages, private healthcare, PTO etc. that the business provides to the wage laborer. The primary issue, as your title implicitly states, is the domineering and exploitative conditions in which the wage laborer finds themselves are systemic. They have no choice but to sell their labor power to the capitalist in order to "sustain their survival...rents/mortgages, food, clothes, healthcare"...in a nutshell, to reproduce themselves daily. Thus, the ability for the wage laborer to reproduce themselves remain conditional and determined by the capitalist class, beyond the (democratic) control by the wage laborers themselves. It is an economic system predicated on vulnerability via the inherent asymmetric relationship of power between the capitalist and individual (key word, individual) worker.

The primary issue is, as your title explicitly states, the domineering and exploitative conditions in which the wage laborer finds themselves are systemic. They have no choice but to sell their labor power to the capitalist in order to "sustain their survival...rents/mortgages, food, clothes, healthcare"...in a nutshell, to reproduce themselves daily. Thus, the ability for the wage laborer to reproduce themselves remain conditional and determined by the capitalist class, beyond the (democratic) control by the wage laborers themselves. It is an economic system predicated on vulnerability via the inherent asymmetric relationship of power between the capitalist and individual (key word, individual) worker. — Maw

But the capitalist side will just say that the reason the capitalist is the capitalist (barring CEOs that are just figurehead types or inherited wealth (e.g. Trump).. we are talking were in the muck hawking wares from the company's inception as a sole proprietor/worker) because they were able to pull off investing and growing the company from its beginning. The other workers are welcome to try their hand at this.. They don't so they sell their labor to the capitalists who did try it.

But the capitalist side will just say that the reason the capitalist is the capitalist (barring CEOs that are just figurehead types.. we are talking were in the muck hawking wares from the company's inception as a sole proprietor/worker) because they were able to pull of investing and growing the company from its beginning. The other workers are welcome to try their hand at this.. — schopenhauer1

Right, so this is where my "a number of issues by premising your argument on this arrangement" comes into play. What you are describing is not veridical to the current conditions of Capitalism. Most wage laborers aren't working in companies where the business owner "grew the company from the beginning" by taking a risk. It's also irrelevant to my point, because the Capitalist, regardless of risk, still finds wage laborers in a condition of precarity.

Small businesses may not necessarily be in the category of

"grew the company from the beginning" — Maw

, but are more likely to be than larger ones.. Looks like small businesses (less than 500 employees) make up something like 44% of US economy and represent 2/3 of net new jobs.

It's also irrelevant to my point, because the Capitalist, regardless of risk, still finds wage laborers in a condition of precarity. — Maw

But again, why is the wage laborers precarity something that is the capitalist's fault for starting something of their own?

Don't companies and parts of the geographical and land management aspects of the government already do this? — schopenhauer1

yes, they do, but the existing companies and governments won't be in business after the revolution.

Weren't these started by individuals through investments? Is this meant to take that property from them — schopenhauer1

They were built with somebody's money -- stockholders', banks', etc. So yes their property will be taken from them--expropriating the expropriators. Socialism does away with private ownership of factories, railroads, warehouses, stores, etc. No, they will not be compensated. No, they will not be taken out and shot. If they have very large and multiple houses, they will lose those too. Yes, they will be free to join work groups like other workers do.

Didn't the Soviet Union try to do this but failed with long bread lines, lack of variety, and unfilled stores? — schopenhauer1

The USSR was handicapped from the get go. There was only a small industrial establishment with highly skilled workers and managers before the Revolution. Then there was a civil war; the Communists tried very hard to catch up, but the cards were stacked against them. There was a drought (in the US and in the USSR) which damaged production. Joseph Stalin was was all around bad news--a paranoid mass murderer. Then there was WWII which devastated the USSR; there were severe population losses. After that, there was a period of recovery then the Cold War race with the US. Parr's of the USSR society was decent, but it was a poorly run state monopoly.

Won't they just be the new managers? What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one? — schopenhauer1

My guess is that many of the old managers of capitalist enterprises would be hired as managers of socialist enterprises. Good management is good management and talent should not be wasted.

What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one? — schopenhauer1

We can all rest assured that there will be people who will not like the new system any better than they liked the current system. I might be one of the many bitching and carping pains in the socialist manager's ass.

Don't they say that market mechanisms fill the demands more efficiently because information is based on price rates where supply meets demand and such? — schopenhauer1

Market mechanisms are not the problem.

But that says it all, doesn't it? — schopenhauer1

It's an example of socialist self-deprecating humor and a lefty in joke. Being required to like what's on your plate is, of course, wrong.

Who decides what gets made? Isn't that going right back to politburos and oligarchic dictatorships? 1984 and all that? — schopenhauer1

Essentially, the workers decide, through three mechanisms: 1. responses to data gathering; 2. decision making by manufacturing, distribution, and consumer groups; and 3. market mechanisms.
Understand, though, that maximum production for maximum profit is not the goal. Matching production to human needs and wants is the goal. Just because 1,000,000 people want to take meth doesn't mean that they are going to get it.

in a socialist world, it seems that because it is run by the same human personality-types — schopenhauer1

Where did you get the idea that the same greedy ruthless bastards would be running socialism? People like that will be sent back to attitude class.

There is still a hierarchy. — schopenhauer1

Socialists are not hierarchy-abolishing anarchists. Yes, there will still be some kind of hierarchy -- which is not unique to capitalism. It's a human thing. There's always a hierarchy of some kind. I hope we will build it better.

there will be consequences (they die) — schopenhauer1

I'm not advocating a terrorist state. We have had more than enough of those already,

How do people decide how much to do, when to do it, and the like? — schopenhauer1

Workers always collectively sort out among themselves what reasonable work performance is.

What does it look like for insubordination under this socialist regime? — schopenhauer1

If you can't abide by the terms of work that your fellow workers have established, whether that be in a factory, a school, a store, or whatever, then one will be encouraged to go work someplace else. Or one will leave on one's own.

'd like to know, what makes one person able and willing to be an owner, and another only able to work for them? — schopenhauer1

Various personal characteristics like drive, greed, ambition, desire for status, compulsion, obsession, determination, delusions of grandeur, etc. I have always lacked the drive ambition compulsion, and determination to make a successful entrepreneur. In addition, I've never had a good business idea in my life.

Yes, I am just trying to get at, how a socialist regime solves anything different than a capitalist one — schopenhauer1

Capitalist corporations are chartered to make a profit for the shareholders of the corporation. Companies make a profit by exploiting their workers (by taking their entire production and paying them for only a fraction of it) and by charging as high a price for ... whatever ... as the market will bear.

Socialism is designed for workers to keep almost all of the value of their product and to sell goods at the lowest possible price to maintain the operation. High profit margins do not figure into socialism.

Socialism is designed for workers to keep almost all of the value of their product and to sell goods at the lowest possible price to maintain the operation. High profit margins do not figure into socialism. — Bitter Crank

Granted that the owner wants to make as much profit as possible, if we go back to the great "chain of being" in his company.. Isn't it fair in a certain sense? Let's look:

The successful regional manager that makes a profit for the company with his management, gets a lot of money.. enough for fancy cars, vacations, and house.

The director of R&D is highly experienced in electronic engineering and programming... He gets enough to live in a large house and buy nice cars and vacations...

The head of other departments have experience and are paid well enough for managing their daily activities.

The technical support is good at answering questions for customers but don't have the technical knowhow of the programmers.. they get paid enough to buy a small house and car..

The customer service has enough to buy maybe a small house, but perhaps just rent in a smaller house or apartment.. they have more generalized knowledge.. .

How would the most educated/experienced get the just rewards in socialism? Simply because people will vote for them in these "Worker's Meetings"..

The capitalist economy already has a way of allocating experience with reward. This incentivizes them to make sure the profits keep rolling in.. and thus work at their job.. How does a socialist system keep people incentivized? Good will towards man?

but are more likely to be.. Looks like something like 44% of US economy and represent 2/3 of net new jobs. But again, why is the wage laborers precarity something that is the capitalist's fault for starting something of their own? — schopenhauer1

2/3rds of "net new jobs" means nothing outside of an absolute number of new jobs relative to total jobs and time period, neither of which you offered. According to WSJ, as of 2014, majority of US wage laborers work for a business of more than 100 employees, i.e. "small business". Likewise, if small business represents 44% of the US economy, that means large 56%, a majority, is generated by larger businesses. And according to the paper which I assume you hastily got these numbers from, the proportion is being generated by small businesses is being outpaced by larger businesses. So to rephrase your second sentence, why are conditions for the wage laborer being determined by, according to your own argument, petite bourgeoisie? Why are the systemic conditions of domination and precarity conditional on a contingent of small capitalists whose relationship to obtaining capital remains, in your abstract argument, unknown?