Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    You did, unless you argue that "it's not pay, it's capital gains that is totally different" (tax authorities often see through that and other similar tricks - but such tricks is one reason 'employee' is more nebulous nowadays).
    What has this to do with your false claim that there aren't tons of highly successful publicly owned companies, exactly?

    You claimed that people didn't have incentives to engage in unethical behaviour, and yet they did that.
    The claim was that worker ownership makes it nearly impossible for said workers to end up exploited due to the lack of the perverse financial incentive that private ownership engenders, not that it's a panacea for all forms of unethical behavior. And even if it isn't, a self-appointed expert on every subject under the sun should be well aware that a single example does not constitute evidence of a trend.

    Maybe try reading people's posts before accusing others of not reading posts.

    I talked about Marx and Engels, who were squarely in the violent revolution camp, as you should know; so knowing that a forcible overthrow of the social structure can lead to Reign of Terror - don't you think it would be prudent to set up guard-rails against that?
    What on earth does setting up guard rails against violent social upheaval have to do with workplace regulation? You know, besides you trying to substitute having an actual argument with red scare bullshit?

    Just empty words as usual, and obviously I've read Marx (and Engels), including 'Das Kapital' (including the really boring parts).
    No, you obviously haven't.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And If your understanding of socialist theory starts and ends with Marx and Engels, you don't understand socialist theory. Let me know when you get to thinkers like Bakunin or Proudhon, before we even get out of the 19th Century, or if you want more-modern takes, George Orwell, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Martin Luther King, leading up to the likes of Meszaros and Chomsky today.
    Don't forget Angela Davis and Abdullah Ocalan.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  2. #82
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    74,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Don't forget Angela Davis and Abdullah Ocalan.
    Oh, there's plenty.

    It's just really fucking telling when anyone criticising socialism doesn't know any names or writing other than Marx and Engels.

    Like, people call me a Marxist all the time, but if I had to pick a 19th Century thinker that my views mostly derive from, it'd be a tie between Proudhon and Bakunin, and it's largely a tie because I prefer Bakunin's ideals, but I'm unconvinced the anarchistic component is practical. It's a useful position to discuss from, though.


  3. #83
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    The claim were that employee run companies would avoid doing bad stuff.
    I never saw anyone claim that employee run businesses would never commit bad acts. Simply that they'd be far better to their employees and customers. Seems you've constructed a strawman. Do you need help following the conversation, or are you going to keep being dishonest?


    Nope, the entire analysis - including the concept of the link between companies and employees is based in the 19th century, and the world has changed. (Although it was likely wrong back then as well).
    You still have yet to explain why employee run businesses would only work in 19th century. So far, your only supporting evidence is


    (Yes, you've literally provided nothing)







    And AGAIN, you have yet to explain why government should be small and local and personable, but businesses should be massive and faceless and thousands of miles away. When conservatives argue for small government, it's because their claim is that the smaller and more local a government is, the better it will be for its people, the better it will understand the problems, the better it will be able to come up with effective solutions.

    This is the third time you've simply not answered this question. I'm beginning to think you know you're wrong on this and are trying to hit these strawmen you're making.
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2022-08-09 at 05:14 PM.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Let me know when you get to thinkers like Bakunin or Proudhon, before we even get out of the 19th Century, or if you want more-modern takes, George Orwell, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Martin Luther King, leading up to the likes of Meszaros and Chomsky today.
    Who is this Meszaros fellow you mentioned?

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    What has this to do with your false claim that there aren't tons of highly successful publicly owned companies, exactly?
    Corrected it for you. They are not "highly successful" and not that many. Notice that none of the large companies we are discussing in this thread are employee-owned - there's a reason for that. The reason these mega-companies have grown large in a short time is partly due to their innovative nature - in combination with more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The claim wasn't that worker ownership makes it nearly impossible for said workers to end up exploited
    Corrected that one as well. It was discussed in terms of reduced incentive for unethical behavior; not in terms of exploitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    What on earth does setting up guard rails against violent social upheaval have to do with workplace regulation?
    Nothing in a sane world.

    However, some don't want to discuss sensible regulations for workplaces (and other issues with large companies), but falsely claim that the only solution is communism or mandated employee-owned companies; then we need to understand the problems with those alleged solutions. If you want to discuss sensible regulations of work-places and how companies use their near-monopoly in other ways (which is a complicated issue) - I have no problem with that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    You still have yet to explain why employee run businesses would only work in 19th century.
    The error is deeper than that, the very question shows the lack of understanding.

    Here are some trick questions:
    Is Uber treating its employees badly - no those ones are "independent contractors".
    If someone I work with is on temporary leave, how is the replacement contract written for the replacement - there isn't one - it's arranged through a staffing agency (nothing bad there)
    Is McDonalds treating its employees badly - which McDonalds? they are mostly different companies with different owners in a franchising system.
    When discussing average salary for these companies, does that include janitors? no, as they are normally subcontracted; in many cases that is ok and for small sites it makes more sense as it isn't necessarily a full time job, but e.g., at Microsoft campus there seems to be an issue
    Are Apple employees killing themselves making iPhones - no that's Foxconn employees.
    Are Google employees dissatisfied with the Youtube-algorithm - Youtube creators are paid by - but not employed by Google.
    See a trend?

    Especially the first and last cases are why I mentioned the precariat instead of proletariat. Still discussing it in terms of employees-employers is a case of not noticing the reality.

  6. #86
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Corrected it for you. They are not "highly successful" and not that many.
    Because you're caging your definition of "success" and "many" in terms designed specifically to exclude business structures you dislike for Reasons™, we know.

    Notice that none of the large companies we are discussing in this thread are employee-owned - there's a reason for that.
    Yes, and that reason being we live in a systemic paradigm that rewards being efficient in exploitation. Something being the default does not automatically make it a good thing.

    The reason these mega-companies have grown large in a short time is partly due to their innovative nature
    Now you just sound like PC2, lol.

    Corrected that one as well. It was discussed in terms of reduced incentive for unethical behavior; not in terms of exploitation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Shifting to a worker-based ownership system makes it nearly impossible for workers to end up being exploited, since it's the workers themselves making those decisions.
    Do shut up.

    Nothing in a sane world.
    I.e. it's not relevant to this discussion. Good to know.

    However, some don't want to discuss sensible regulations for workplaces (and other issues with large companies), but falsely claim that the only solution is communism or mandated employee-owned companies
    You're really telling on yourself as to what your actual economic agenda is with how quickly you're resorting to strawman arguments and outright lying about what other people have said, since nobody has made the claim that "communism is the only solution" or anything about "mandated" worker cooperatives.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-08-09 at 09:17 PM.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Worker ownership doesn't mean you don't draw a salary for your work and get health insurance and other benefits, dude.
    What are you even discussing????????????????????????????

    You discussed employee-owned companies in terms of a simple pay structure where people are paid in proportion, to claim that since it is so little no-one would violate ethics for their small share.

    But that's not necessarily the case; there are also US-based where a the companies are owned by employees (but normally not all employees), and where the pay isn't like that and you often get a percentage of what you bring in (to a large extent). I'm sure they could set it up the framework to handle all employees as well if required. In those companies the same incentives for unethical behavior exist - or do you really think Brett Kavanaugh was ethical when he worked for one of them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The Reign of Terror was the product of the French Revolution, a violent revolution based on the ideas of liberty, equality, anti-monarchism, and so on. The same motives behind the American Revolution. And nothing to do with socialist theory, really.
    The point was that it had already happened; and thus a smart person would try to guard against a future violent revolution leading to the same result - at least if you consider that result undesirable; whereas Marx and Engels didn't and many times the results were eerily similar - so the fact that it has nothing to do with socialist theory is just a failure on their part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And If your understanding of socialist theory starts and ends with Marx and Engels, you don't understand socialist theory. Let me know when you get to thinkers like Bakunin or Proudhon, before we even get out of the 19th Century, or if you want more-modern takes, George Orwell, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Martin Luther King, leading up to the likes of Meszaros and Chomsky today.
    The previous point was that Marx and Engels, as you should know, were violent communistic revolutionary "thinkers"; and should be blamed for the communistic revolutions and their results.

    Note I was discussing "communism" - you tried to bait-and-switch with switching to socialism, which is not necessarily the same; as for the names I've read or listened to all except Russel (who I obviously know of) and Meszaros. Cannot say anything good about Gish-Gallop Chomsky. I've also listed to many other socialists, communists, and social democrats; both thinkers and more pragmatic persons - by looking outside the Anglo-American sphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    So, you didn't you recognize the item in the 10-point program?
    And no answer...

  8. #88
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    What are you even discussing????????????????????????????

    You discussed employee-owned companies in terms of a simple pay structure where people are paid in proportion to claim that since it is so little no-one would violate ethics for their small share.
    Fairly sure the point he was making was that the diffusion of potential personal gain from unethical business decisions translates to reduced incentive to engage in unethical business decisions, not talking about any specific pay structure.

    Is English not your first language or something? Because it's either that or you're just deliberately interpreting his arguments incorrectly.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Because you're caging your definition of "success" and "many" in terms
    Of actual success and numbers. If you ask a normal person for a list of ten successful and/or large company, how many employee-owned companies do you think will be on that list?

    I replied to the following statement:
    The capitalist profit motive is not the same as a worker-driven profit motive, because the individual benefits are much-reduced; unethical choices made don't lead to the same scale of windfall when it's split 20,000+ ways, and no one's getting a lion's share. Without that personal gain, it becomes a lot harder to self-justify unethical acts; a decision made to earn an additional $20m, split 20,000 ways, only works out to about $1000 each; that's like "normal Christmas bonus" territory for a lot of professional firms; I just saw a sign two days ago where a hair stylist was offering a $1500 signing bonus for new stylists.
    So please take your own advice.

  10. #90
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    The previous point was that Marx and Engels, as you should know, were violent communistic revolutionary "thinkers"; and should be blamed for the communistic revolutions and their results.
    As opposed to the systems preceding those revolutions which left their participants so impoverished and bereft of justice that violent revolution was deemed the only viable strategy for effecting change.

    Again; really telling on yourself. "Communistic" is right wing hack-speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Of actual success and numbers. If you ask a normal person for a list of ten successful and/or large company, how many employee-owned companies do you think will be on that list?
    I already addressed this in the next part of my reply:

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac
    Yes, and that reason being we live in a systemic paradigm that rewards being efficient in exploitation. Something being the default does not automatically make it a good thing.
    The "success" we're talking about is in terms of "able to sustain itself as a viable entity and meet its operating objectives" which many worker owned companies accomplish despite a system favoring exploitative practices. The point being that those structures aren't obsolete or nonviable and it is entirely reasonable to consider them as a practical alternative to the current default of exploitation.

    I replied to the following statement
    You mean you incorrectly interpreted that statement in order to argue against a strawman. We know.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Fairly sure the point he was making was that the diffusion of potential personal gain from unethical business decisions translates to reduced incentive to engage in unethical business decisions, not talking about any specific pay structure.
    The hypothetical split was even - and even if adjustments can be made it only works if the diffusion is very large, but if you get 10% (or more) of what you bring in (even if the companies has thousand of employees as owners), the argument doesn't really hold.

    And many normal companies also have bonuses and profit-sharing - even at smaller percentages (to align the employees with the company); so surely someone thinks it work.

  12. #92
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    The hypothetical split was even - and even if adjustments can be made it only works if the diffusion is very large, but if you get 10% (or more) of what you bring in (even if the companies has thousand of employees as owners), the argument doesn't really hold.
    The argument was that larger sums of money as personal return for exploitative behavior provide more incentive to engage in those behaviors than smaller sums, that's all. Your hyperliteralist attempt to math away a manifestly obvious thing shows how flimsy your 'point' actually is, lol.

    Just a hint, but "I'm a middle management goon whose entire sense of self worth hinges on the scraps of authority I exercise in an exploitative employment structure" is a personal problem, not a justification for trying to rationalise maintaining those exploitative structures by means of red scare bullshit.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I think the focus on size misses the real issue; that being the existence of oligarchs exploiting these massive companies for personal political gain.

    A lot of these companies, like Youtube, are massive because of individual choice; the size of their audience and content creation is the draw, and if you tried to split it up into Atube and Btube, everyone would end up picking one of the two and re-inflating it, unless you put in hard regional separators which is challenging in a digital world. As long as the company isn't engaging in market manipulations that limit competition directly, I don't have a problem with them outcompeting by virtue of their size alone, when that size is the appeal.

    Most of the rest, where they do get abusive, is cases like Amazon's harsh employee requirements, the whole "peeing in bottles" and "burnout" stuff we've been hearing about. That's due to the decision-makers, the oligarchs, not respecting the staff and extracting profit from them the same way an oil company does an oil deposit.

    Shifting to a worker-based ownership system makes it nearly impossible for workers to end up being exploited, since it's the workers themselves making those decisions. It also means the massive amount of profits these megacorporations make is going largely to their massive employee base, boosting all their incomes rather than letting one tick of a human being at the very top bleed off the vast majority of that profit all to themselves.

    The problem with Amazon is not Amazon. The problem is Jeff Bezos.
    The issue with youtube is that Alphabet Inc. has Calico
    CapitalG
    DeepMind
    Google
    Google Fiber
    GV
    Intrinsic
    Isomorphic Labs
    Verily
    Waymo
    Wing
    X Development

    as all the subsidiaries. You just need to break up this so one entity does not own from top to bottom everything.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    As opposed to the systems preceding those revolutions which left their participants so impoverished and bereft of justice that violent revolution was deemed the only viable strategy for effecting change.
    Even during Marx and Engels time there were reformists; that they also spent time arguing against; and over time reformists succeeded in many countries - so it seems clear that reformism wasn't merely a viable strategy (as a temporary measure or over time as a permanent solution) - it also seems like it was the only viable strategy.

    And to be clear: Marx and Engels weren't impoverished - and many revolts have had other reasons as well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    unethical choices made don't lead to the same scale of windfall when it's split 20,000+ ways, and no one's getting a lion's share
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The argument was that larger sums of money as personal return for exploitative behavior provide more incentive to engage in those behaviors than smaller sums, that's all.
    Your attempts at gaslighting are noted, they are still incorrect.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2022-08-09 at 10:07 PM. Reason: Added "Lion's share" as that clearly shows the assumption

  15. #95
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Even during Marx and Engels time there were reformists; that they also spent time arguing against; and over time reformists succeeded in many countries - so it seems clear that reformism wasn't merely a viable strategy (as a temporary measure or over time as a permanent solution) - it also seems like it was the only viable strategy.
    Wow it's almost as if there were differing systemic factors between countries where incremental reform was successful and the ones where violent revolution precipitated, imagine that.

    And to be clear: Marx and Engels weren't impoverished - and many revolts have had other reasons as well.
    Another strawman and another non sequitur.

    Your attempts at gaslighting are noted, they are still incorrect.
    It's not gaslighting, it's you not knowing how to read an argument. Lol.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Wow it's almost as if there were differing systemic factors between countries where incremental reform was successful and the ones where violent revolution precipitated, imagine that.
    Yes, and the countries where reform worked were capitalistic and industrialized.

    Revolution only "worked" in countries that were fairly backward, autocratic and less industrialized (all of that is related) - and there was also the issue of foreign influence (for various reasons).

    (That's btw contrary to Marx' theory. But I guess you will not see that as a problem.)

    But that is 19th (and 20th) century, and sane people see that the reforms worked at least sometime and could be modified peacefully - so continue with them, adapt them to the 21st century; based on the actual problems - and note that employment isn't what it used to be.

  17. #97
    Banned Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,952
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Thing is, we haven't seen anything resembling pure communism as it would be a leaderless society where you don't own anything but are provided with what you need, not necessarily want. Closest thing that has ever been shown is Star Trek(and it has leaders but it gets the rest) or the second half of the short story Manna(link to said story). We have seen close to pure capitalism back in the 1800s with the Industrial Revolution where labor laws, environment laws, and the like did not exist so industry could pretty much do what they wanted including having indebted servitude.

    Problem is, since we have limited resources and humans are generally greedy selfish people, communism will never exist in any form other than authoritarian. To have anything resembling pure communism, you would need things like near unlimited energy and replication units where you can create anything you would ever need.

    Granted, I could be wrong on some of this or all of this but this is how I've come to view it.

    Yeah I here you, but if not can't that be said about everything?

    I think a lot of great ideas exist only in a vacuum of perfect circumstances.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Yeah I here you, but if not can't that be said about everything?

    I think a lot of great ideas exist only in a vacuum of perfect circumstances.
    All the isms are complete and total failures that no one would want to live in that's why all governments sprinkle parts of different ideas to create a system. The US capitalist central has a social safety net and hands billions of dollars of welfare money to corporations every year (oil, car, solar) not to mention a tax code that allows them negative tax rates. The "communists" Chinese have a capitalism center that allowed them such a rapid growth.

  19. #99
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Omelas
    Posts
    57,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, and the countries where reform worked were capitalistic and industrialized.
    Nah, you have it backwards. The countries where capitalism and industrialization worked (in the sense of providing generalized prosperity rather than acting as wealth extraction mechanisms for the elite) were ones that were amenable to reforms that curbed the pernicious aspects of capitalism and industrialization - something which is demonstrated by the fact that there was considerable lag between the introduction of capitalist economic structures and generalized prosperity, as well as the fact that capitalism has started to fail in that regard now that those reforms have been progressively rolled back since the 1980s.

    It also doesn't remotely support your whinging about "communistic (sic) writers being to blame for revolutions in Russia and China and their aftermaths" as opposed to to the systems preceding those revolutions not providing more peaceful avenues for change and the fact that authoritarian regimes tend to be the short term result of revolution regardless of its ideological underpinnings.

    Revolution only "worked" in countries that were fairly backward, autocratic and less industrialized
    I.e. countries where the avenues for incremental reform were narrow to nonexistent. You're not actually refuting what I've said.

    (That's btw contrary to Marx' theory. But I guess you will not see that as a problem.)

    But that is 19th (and 20th) century, and sane people
    'Sane' people don't have a weird obsession with insisting that suggesting worker owned businesses are a less exploitative paradigm is the same thing as advocating violent revolution in hopes of establishing a communist society, as you've been doing for the entire thread.

    Again, you're really telling on yourself by trying to spin people's arguments about the scope of corporate regulation and reform into an existential threat against the social order.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-08-09 at 11:07 PM.
    holy shit, we actually have the nofly list. holy fucking bingle. what?! :3

  20. #100
    Banned Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    41,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    All the isms are complete and total failures that no one would want to live in that's why all governments sprinkle parts of different ideas to create a system. The US capitalist central has a social safety net and hands billions of dollars of welfare money to corporations every year (oil, car, solar) not to mention a tax code that allows them negative tax rates. The "communists" Chinese have a capitalism center that allowed them such a rapid growth.
    Yeah used to be once upon a time the U.S in my opinion was immune to the circumstances such as in China or Russia. I still love America an I do believe we mean to do the right thing over all for the most part. But we have hedged so close to the edge of almost every criticism we have laid towards others.

    I'm personally all for a system that makes sure everyone's basic needs are provided for Shelter, Water, Food and Medicine. Everything else you have to work for.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •