How would the most educated/experienced get the just rewards in socialism? — schopenhauer1

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. Karl Marx

Yes, you are pretty much representing this view here: — schopenhauer1

Reminds me of a song:

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? — Maw

How would a business legitimately form in your opinion? It sounds to me that it would be just as impersonal as today.. Some big thing X (capitalist investor in one, government planning agency in another) decides to do Y.. You are still a worker working for some group of people.. What really changes?

What I can gather from you and @Bitter Crank is that these are possibilities in socialism:
1) People will get paid fairly because there will be no disproportionate wealth distribution between owner classes and worker classes.

But then you forget the great chain of being... Who will want to be a doctor, put in the work for being a programmer or engineer if they get paid as much as the greeter at the front desk? I guess the most "radical" thing in these systems would be that there will be more money spread around but still in a tiered fashion..

2) Decisions and management will be controlled by workers councils.. How would these people run things any better or worse than the current system? Just like other democratic processes.. there will be factions and the people on one side would hate the decisions of people on the other side... Maybe this can be solved by shifting to orgs that have your viewpoints.. but then there's all sorts of problems..
a) Your skillset is not needed in the ones you agree with.. thus stuck at an org with bad views (according to you)
b) Your voice is not heard.. perhaps wherever you go, your view is not represented, it's nothing better or worse than before.
c) I still haven't really seen an answer for insubordination.. I guess move to different councils? But then I am sure your reputation will follow you.. assuming they ask for recommendations and the like.. I see no changes..

So I guess at the end of the day, if what is being proposed is in fact revealed to be nothing much better than the current system, we are kind of stuck.

That seems like a fair analysis. I used to feel that way, too. But I’ve come to find the theory of exploitation risks limiting one’s options, and worse, oneself. If everyone is out to exploit you, how could you morally work or trade with them? If you believe you’re a slave, how does one not think and act like a slave? It’s no surprise to me, at least, that Marx was a foul-smelling deadbeat, getting by on the labor and wealth of others.

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. — Bitter Crank

I think your best argument here is that individual ideas belong to the community.. but you should back that up with more argumentation because that isn't just apparent by fiat. We are used to the idea that ideas can be protected and doled out by selling rights to companies (or make one's own company) with those ideas. Taking away this individual notion of ideas to a community one, would have to be justified.

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. — Bitter Crank

So the assessment is that since we are a more advanced capitalist civilization, our large government entity would be able to handle the supply and demand problems of balancing capital and consumer goods?

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. — Bitter Crank

Damn Bitter Crank, I have to report to the same asshole? Well, fuck...

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. — Bitter Crank

Gulags? But also, really, what would that look like?

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

No no, I wasn't saying that the state kills you but nature.. You must do X to survive and not die.. Thus we as humans are thrown into a system of survival...capitalist/communist, hunting-gathering, whatever. As an antinatalist, I am against the injustice of making a new human endure any of the systems.. but that is a larger question.

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

Do they? I've noticed with coworkers, that people with more charisma, certain personality-types, group-think takes place that marginalizes other workers.. The minority will simply not be heard, yet again...

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. — Bitter Crank

So we are still in an the existential problem of "Work sets you free.." In other words, work or die you human scum.. and it better be on "our" terms!

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. — Bitter Crank

But someone who does have a good business idea and somehow cobbles it together would say that he "deserves" the gamble of setting out on his own.. His reward is having his own business, his punishment would be going bankrupt..

At the end of the day, why would your problems with the system not be resolved by simply following through and adopting more liberal programs?

So, the bankrupt business owner gets a lift on his feet again from the government after losing his business.. The unemployed grocery bagger gets subsistence pay until they are employed or something. The government gives large subsidies to fuels that are not fossil fuels, etc..

That seems like a fair analysis. I used to feel that way, too. But I’ve come to find the theory of exploitation risks limiting one’s options, and worse, oneself. If everyone is out to exploit you, how could you morally work or trade with them? If you believe you’re a slave, how does one not think and act like a slave? It’s no surprise to me, at least, that Marx was a foul-smelling deadbeat, getting by on the labor and wealth of others. — NOS4A2

I think our current system doesn't show the avenues very well for how one can become their own business owner. In the 18th and 19th century, it really was easier to start a cobbler business, a blacksmith, a small peddler, or any number of things.. Because the costs of living were lower (with less expectations), one could very well work for oneself easily... The large explosion of population that came with factories, meant that business became impersonal things that only really clever people who knew the paperwork, connections, and avenues and could sort it out from all the bureaucracy could get done. Now everyone is a salaried and wage worker.. Marx is every bit as relevant today as he was then.. Have you actually read his works? He had sharp analysis and was no charlatan in terms of thought-producer.. He was prolific in his economic and sociological thinking.

How about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? He will say that he used his capital and wits to do this and employs people who voluntarily sell him their labor as a result. — schopenhauer1

There are many scenarios, especially in the cases of small businesses, that are run by families, friends, etc. There are sole proprietorships and partnerships of two or more people, etc. Some are run by decent people who treat others with respect, pay decent wages, etc. But again this ignores something important: the very system of power. There were, after all, very decent slave owners -- but you wouldn't argue, I presume, that this fact justifies the system of slavery?

So if there's a sweeping generalization being made here, I think it's about the very heart of the capitalist system itself, which from my point of view (and others) a particular arrangement of control, dominance and authority -- that is, a relationship of power. It is defined not as lord and vessel, King/Queen and subjects, master and slave -- but of employer and employee.

The "employer" in many cases isn't only one person but a group of people, who maintain their position through laws surrounding ownership and property rights, which is a gift from governments (that create and enforce those laws). So it's a socioeconomic system that is maintained by governments, and isn't at all inevitable. This system is, in fact, deeply undemocratic -- which is plainly obvious for anyone who works in a company with such a "capitalist" structure.

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. — Ciceronianus

This is excellent. Incredible how often something so plain is overlooked. It's a stupid game, one with no limits -- no cap. People can hoard and hoard to infinity, all under the rationale that "innovation and hard work" would cease if you took away the "incentive" to accumulate endlessly.

The "employer" in many cases isn't only one person but a group of people, who maintain their position through laws surrounding ownership and property rights, which is a gift from governments (that create and enforce those laws). — Xtrix

Barring corruption (which is its own problem), what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan? The reward is the profit, the punishment is loss of business. I did mention that it is harder for folks to understand how to start their own business. That is also a different matter that I think needs to be addressed.

It’s easy enough that if the choice were between “wage slavery”, “exploitation”, and starting a business, I’d start a business. Unfortunately it involves work and sacrifice, which frightens a vast segment of society.

Marx was a good writer, but a hypocrite of the highest order. Wherever his doctrines have been employed there has been nothing but moral and systematic failure on a grand scale. So I don’t think he’s relevant.

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.] — Bitter Crank

:100:

Barring corruption (which is its own problem), what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan?

If I’m not mistaken any seasoned Marxist will tell you there isn’t anything “wrong” with profit in the moral or normative sense. Rather, using some tricky language Marx is simply saying that profit entails the worker to be exploited insofar as they produce X amount of value but are only compensated a lesser Y amount. Marx isn’t saying “because of this, profit is morally wrong” but rather that workers working for a wage is like going to a dock and getting on a boat with holes in it when right beside it there was a perfectly good boat you had to work a little harder to operate.

Owning the means of production privately and turning a profit is a "problem" in large part because Marx’s analysis also leads him to conclude there's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall with increasing automation-where in the short-term it tends to be in the interest of individual firms to introduce more automation that lowers production costs relative to their competitors. However, in the long term automation decreases the overall rate of profit across the capitalist economy. Marx thinks this will cause the system to become increasingly unstable, among other reasons because it will drive the rate of exploitation to increase, and this will make it more likely that there's a revolution where the workers seize the means of production (this is the sort of thing that Marxists may be referring to when they talk about 'internal contradictions' of capitalism).

So forget the moral language, the whole thing is more of a causal analysis; like a doctor analyzing a disease that will probably spread. Marx is not attempting to change the "natural" course of things by persuading enough people to overthrow capitalism by appealing to their moral sense, though many socialists do this to certain degrees of success

If you ask me the only thing CEO's and business owners really risk are becoming workers again. — Albero

:100:

There are many scenarios, especially in the cases of small businesses, that are run by families, friends, etc. There are sole proprietorships and partnerships of two or more people, etc. Some are run by decent people who treat others with respect, pay decent wages, etc. But again this ignores something important: the very system of power. There were, after all, very decent slave owners -- but you wouldn't argue, I presume, that this fact justifies the system of slavery?

Not only this, but tons of leftist theorists have pointed out that “mom and pop” small businesses are usually the first people or most prominent to support fascist or reactionary movements. Fascism itself has always been called a “petite bourgeoise pseudo revolutionary movement”. I think the critical theorists were right to point out that independent small businesses that can’t compete with the big ones will turn fascist, because they are basically programmed to go into survival mode when scary leftists want to abolish private property. They’ve been trying to stay afloat for years and right wing populism always tries to appeal to the white American storefront owner

what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan? — schopenhauer1

The very idea of ownership and private property is questionable, but my point was that the capitalist relationship of employer/employee is maintained by a system of laws, many based on these "rights." Let's assume there's nothing wrong with ownership and private property -- regardless, how capitalist corporations are organized is fundamentally undemocratic. There are alternatives to this -- co-ops are a good example, worker councils, etc. That, to me, is the heart of the matter. Why should a small group of people -- a few major shareholders, 10-20 board directors, and a handful of executives get all of profits generated by the entire workforce? Furthermore, why should the majority of the workforce have no say whatsoever in determining what to do with those profits? Do you find this to be just way of conducting affairs? Why not some other way?

It may have been OK if the ruling corporate class didn't become so greedy. If, for example, they re-invested in the company infrastructure, workers pay and benefits, community, etc., instead of giving 90%+ of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It's precisely this way of conducting business -- the neoliberal way -- that has really decimated the society and has led to such anti-capitalist sentiment. Almost nothing can be worse for capitalism than neoliberalism, which is what we're living under currently (and for the last 40 years).

Wherever his doctrines have been employed there has been nothing but moral and systematic failure on a grand scale. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Didn't realize the United States employed Marxist doctrines.



So then we also agree that capitalism, as a system, is also fundamentally illegitimate -- regardless of how well people are treated in some cases.

How would a business legitimately form in your opinion? — schopenhauer1

That's irrelevant to the topic of the OP where there is no mention of socialism or any other economic alternatives to capitalism. We are discussing the conditions and relationship between the capitalist class and wage laborers, i.e. the "arrangement" between capitalists and workers. Considering that you continue to bypass what I'm saying and are pivoting the argument towards theoretical socialist arrangements, seems like you tacitly accept my premise that the social arrangement of Capitalism is unjust.

Communist parties do. I might wonder which communist state, current or otherwise, you’d prefer to live in, but I suspect I know the answer.

Communist parties do. I might wonder which communist state, current or otherwise, you’d prefer to live in, but I suspect I know the answer. — NOS4A2

So the United States is a communist party? Since it's a moral and systematic failure, it meets those criteria.

China is ruled by a communist party. Do pretty well economically...but then again so does the US.

The United States employs Marxist doctrines and is a communist party? What?

Yes, it turns out you can do pretty well economically if you employ slave labor, suppress free trade, steal innovations from freer countries, and exploit your citizenry.

That's irrelevant to the topic of the OP where there is no mention of socialism or any other economic alternatives to capitalism. We are discussing the conditions and relationship between the capitalist class and wage laborers, i.e. the "arrangement" between capitalists and workers. Considering that you continue to bypass what I'm saying and are pivoting the argument towards theoretical socialist arrangements, seems like you tacitly accept my premise that the social arrangement of Capitalism is unjust. — Maw

Yeah man, I consider life and ALL working arrangements unjust. I think the issue lies in a much more fundamental problem with putting more people in a no-win situation of comply or die in the first place. The first real form of exploitation (I know, its not Marx' definition, but in terms of putting someone in a bind, it is). I'm a freakn antinatalist, all sides (capitalists/communists/anarchists, whatever) hate me :lol:.

I think we are confusing corrupt capitalist practices or capitalism with bad loopholes and loose regulation practices, with the concept itself. The same goes for @Xtrix here:

The very idea of ownership and private property is questionable, but my point was that the capitalist relationship of employer/employee is maintained by a system of laws, many based on these "rights." Let's assume there's nothing wrong with ownership and private property -- regardless, how capitalist corporations are organized is fundamentally undemocratic. There are alternatives to this -- co-ops are a good example, worker councils, etc. That, to me, is the heart of the matter. Why should a small group of people -- a few major shareholders, 10-20 board directors, and a handful of executives get all of profits generated by the entire workforce? Furthermore, why should the majority of the workforce have no say whatsoever in determining what to do with those profits? Do you find this to be just way of conducting affairs? Why not some other way?

It may have been OK if the ruling corporate class didn't become so greedy. If, for example, they re-invested in the company infrastructure, workers pay and benefits, community, etc., instead of giving 90%+ of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It's precisely this way of conducting business -- the neoliberal way -- that has really decimated the society and has led to such anti-capitalist sentiment. Almost nothing can be worse for capitalism than neoliberalism, which is what we're living under currently (and for the last 40 years). — Xtrix

Owning the means of production privately and turning a profit is a "problem" in large part because Marx’s analysis also leads him to conclude there's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall with increasing automation-where in the short-term it tends to be in the interest of individual firms to introduce more automation that lowers production costs relative to their competitors. However, in the long term automation decreases the overall rate of profit across the capitalist economy. Marx thinks this will cause the system to become increasingly unstable, among other reasons because it will drive the rate of exploitation to increase, and this will make it more likely that there's a revolution where the workers seize the means of production (this is the sort of thing that Marxists may be referring to when they talk about 'internal contradictions' of capitalism). — Albero

Understood. So I guess the best means to communism is let capitalism do its thing, cause it will just "get" there one day.

I think @Maw had some good points regarding precarity though. That is to say and here is where @NOS4A2 is unrealistic. If businesses are exploitive, unfair, and miserable, it can be hard to simply pack up and go somewhere else. There is an inertia to being a worker who needs to rely on everything from an organization that is literally your lifeline. Indeed this is a power differential to the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy or downright poor. Agency is had by the wealthy and not so much for the not-wealthy.

That is to say and here is where @NOS4A2 is unrealistic. If businesses are exploitive, unfair, and miserable, it can be hard to simply pack up and go somewhere else.

Sure, it’s hard to pack up and leave. No one said it was easy. But the unrealistic part is believing one can or should be insulated from such hardship.

Understood. So I guess the best means to communism is let capitalism do its thing, cause it will just "get" there one day.

This is actually a huge point of debate when it comes to contemporary Marxist academics. Most Marxists today don’t think this anymore, and understand Marx was incorrect about a lot of things like this (that it’ll just get there because dialectics say so). However, the orthodox Marxists do agree with this. If you ask me, the various economic crises that capitalism has successfully overcome like 2008 show that a revolution can’t just “happen”. Nobody could’ve predicted capitalism’s resilience

Sure, it’s hard to pack up and leave. No one said it was easy. But the unrealistic part is believing one can or should be insulated from such hardship. — NOS4A2

Absolutely not my position at all. Putting someone else in a situation that experiences hardship is just wrong, period. Hence my antinatalism. I don't believe it makes you more virtuous, etc. It might make you more compassionate or savvy but if you need hardship to do that, then the whole damn system (life) is corrupt and should be stopped immediately.

Nobody could’ve predicted capitalism’s resilience — Albero

I mean, it's not that hard to understand to me. Marx didn't predict that the government could be so involved in stop-gaps (think FDR in the Great Depression, Teddy Roosevelt during the early 1900s, think LBJ in the post-war era).. Once that was realized, then truly "revolutionary" change was seen as unnecessary to keeping the system going. Conservatives should thank liberals, as they helped sustain the system, not get rid of it.

My only point was it’s not unrealistic to seek better conditions, as humans have been doing since time immemorial. So in fact it’s not unrealistic to seek better employment.

You already know what I think about your ethical argument for antinatalism. Just like putting someone in a situation that experiences hardship is wrong, so is it wrong to deny someone the experience of love or joy or beauty. If you want to take credit for the former you will also take it for the latter.

Conservatives should thank liberals, as they helped sustain the system, not get rid of it.

This is why I really don’t understand modern day US political discourse from the right side. What’s with people thinking Biden is going to instigate a Marxist plot when it’s guys like him who are more interested in military spending than infrastructure

so is it wrong to deny someone the experience of love or joy or beauty. If you want to take credit for the former you will also take it for the latter. — NOS4A2

Not to derail my own thread, but this is wrong because not experiencing joy is not good or bad if no one is around to know. PREVENTING bad when one is able, is always good, period.

So the assessment is that since we are a more advanced capitalist civilization, our large government entity would be able to handle the supply and demand problems of balancing capital and consumer goods? — schopenhauer1

Marx thought that the employees of advanced capitalist operations--who actually run the companies--acquired the knowledge to effectively administer operations. Does that mean the janitor knows how to balance the books? No. It means that the employees who work in management know how to manage -- because that is what they do every day.

The owners of large corporations (GM, IBM, Apple, Intel, Toro, Wells Fargo, etc.) do not manage the corporation. They hire people to do that. Where do these people come from? Harvard Business School, Carlson Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, et al. Management is layered by ranks into ever finer detail.

There is one group of owners who do manage -- the Board of Directors. They make major decisions like GM will focus on electric vehicles. They don't figure out how to do it.

Where does the Board of Directors get the information that electric vehicles are the future? From the employees of other companies who track trends. And so on and so forth.

All these people working in thousands of companies possess a vast pool of knowledge about how to run things.