I like Prof. Wolff’s idea of forcing all companies to be worker-owned cooperatives
How would that work in the real world? Like if I work somewhere there’s 100 employees, I’d have a 1% share of the company. So I’d be getting 1% of the profits. I work really hard and now the company is making a lot of profit and so I’m making a lot of money because my share in the company. That’s cool. But we’re doing so well we kind of need to expand. So we need to hire 50 new employees. Do those new employees get an equal share as me? So now I only get 0.75% share of the profit after spending a decade working on developing an awesome product and the person hired yesterday now gets the exact same 0.75% share? Do new employees have to take out a loan to buy a share to be employed? Or do we just give away the shares which will lessen the value of of my share for no compensation. Maybe we shouldn’t hire anyone new, my retirement plan involves my share in the company not losing value.
If I leave the company do I sell my share of the company? To who? The other employees? Do they pool together their money to do a buy-back? What about that person just hired doesn’t have the money to buyback the share of someone leaving the company? Are they forced to take out a loan?
It feels like an idea that sounds nice until you consider the details of how it would actually work in real life. But I guess that’s just socialism in general I guess.
Worker owned coops are already a thing in many parts of the world, so examples in the real world can already be used as models. It’s not just a theoretical, “on paper” idea that has never been implemented before.
Being worker-owned does not necessarilly mean that everyone gets paid equally. What it means is that there is a democracy in the workplace. For example, imagine if your manager was elected by you and your coworkers instead of your manager deciding whether or not you get to work at your job. Also imagine if you were able to vote on wage increases for you and your coworkers (of course, taking company profits into account. Wages aren’t going to appear out of thin air) based on the job position. Generally speaking, people are going to vote for higher wages for people who have a heavier workload/more responsibilities. Currently in non-worker-owned, publicly traded companies, wages are indirectly decided by a board of directors, who then elect the chief officers, and ultimately, who make the decisions for the company.
It feels like an idea that sounds nice until you consider the details of how it would actually work in real life. But I guess that’s just socialism in general I guess.
Richard Wolff is a doctor and professor in economics and is an economic historian. He knows what he’s talking about. I’d recommend watching one of his talks on his version of socialism, which you can find on YouTube. Here is one of his talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s
OR, imagine in your “Democratic” work environment, sentiment eventually split into 50/50 over which manager to vote for and one manager had been bought and paid for by a rival business to undermine your co-op business in the same space, but but his followers were racist and anti-abortion and anti lgbt and cult like and threatened violence to the other side?
All roads lead to some percentage of authoritarianism.
Sorry, but there is no way socialism works. Or really any single system yet devised by man.
Humans gonna human.
No matter the system, there will always be born some greedy psychopath with the intelligence to attempt to get power, and the type of people that would follow.
People need to learn to live with a balance of each ideology mixed.
You completely made up this scenario. Not every vote is 50/50, because not every voting system is first past the post. Also, in a system where all companies are worker-owned coops, you have the very real option of just changing jobs and/or reporting your manager if they are acting unethically; there is also the option of just voting to oust that manager and hold a new election for a new manager. In this system, there is no owner class to influence the government to weaken labor protections like there is under capitalism.
All roads lead to some percentage of authoritarianism.
Source?
Sorry, but there is no way socialism works.
So how has it been working all over the globe? Again, worker-owned coops already exist. The Mondragon corporation in Spain is one of the largest companies in that country, and is a worker-owned coop. There are many examples in the US as well, like Ocean Spray. Just because you don’t believe something works doesn’t change reality.
No matter the system, there will always be born some greedy psychopath with the intelligence to attempt to get power, and the type of people that would follow.
Which is why people work together to create a system that makes getting that kind of power impossible, which is the entire point of socialism (especially 21st century socialism as described by Wolff). If you just give up, then the greedy psychopaths win by default. The phrase Marx used is “seize the means of production” and not “just accept that greed exists and let the owner class continue to own the means of production.”
People need to learn to live with a balance of each ideology mixed.
Why? So the owner class can continue to have control over our society and continue to push our government towards fascism? No, thank you. Just because you have given up doesn’t mean everyone else should.
All the things you worried about really do happen, it’s just that currently they’re done in the interests of wealthy investors instead of in the interests of the employees.
How would that work in the real world? Like if I work somewhere there’s 100 employees, I’d have a 1% share of the company. So I’d be getting 1% of the profits. I work really hard and now the company is making a lot of profit and so I’m making a lot of money because my share in the company. That’s cool. But we’re doing so well we kind of need to expand. So we need to hire 50 new employees. Do those new employees get an equal share as me? So now I only get 0.75% share of the profit after spending a decade working on developing an awesome product and the person hired yesterday now gets the exact same 0.75% share? Do new employees have to take out a loan to buy a share to be employed? Or do we just give away the shares which will lessen the value of of my share for no compensation. Maybe we shouldn’t hire anyone new, my retirement plan involves my share in the company not losing value.
If I leave the company do I sell my share of the company? To who? The other employees? Do they pool together their money to do a buy-back? What about that person just hired doesn’t have the money to buyback the share of someone leaving the company? Are they forced to take out a loan?
It feels like an idea that sounds nice until you consider the details of how it would actually work in real life. But I guess that’s just socialism in general I guess.
Worker owned coops are already a thing in many parts of the world, so examples in the real world can already be used as models. It’s not just a theoretical, “on paper” idea that has never been implemented before.
Being worker-owned does not necessarilly mean that everyone gets paid equally. What it means is that there is a democracy in the workplace. For example, imagine if your manager was elected by you and your coworkers instead of your manager deciding whether or not you get to work at your job. Also imagine if you were able to vote on wage increases for you and your coworkers (of course, taking company profits into account. Wages aren’t going to appear out of thin air) based on the job position. Generally speaking, people are going to vote for higher wages for people who have a heavier workload/more responsibilities. Currently in non-worker-owned, publicly traded companies, wages are indirectly decided by a board of directors, who then elect the chief officers, and ultimately, who make the decisions for the company.
Richard Wolff is a doctor and professor in economics and is an economic historian. He knows what he’s talking about. I’d recommend watching one of his talks on his version of socialism, which you can find on YouTube. Here is one of his talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s
OR, imagine in your “Democratic” work environment, sentiment eventually split into 50/50 over which manager to vote for and one manager had been bought and paid for by a rival business to undermine your co-op business in the same space, but but his followers were racist and anti-abortion and anti lgbt and cult like and threatened violence to the other side?
All roads lead to some percentage of authoritarianism. Sorry, but there is no way socialism works. Or really any single system yet devised by man.
Humans gonna human.
No matter the system, there will always be born some greedy psychopath with the intelligence to attempt to get power, and the type of people that would follow. People need to learn to live with a balance of each ideology mixed.
You completely made up this scenario. Not every vote is 50/50, because not every voting system is first past the post. Also, in a system where all companies are worker-owned coops, you have the very real option of just changing jobs and/or reporting your manager if they are acting unethically; there is also the option of just voting to oust that manager and hold a new election for a new manager. In this system, there is no owner class to influence the government to weaken labor protections like there is under capitalism.
Source?
So how has it been working all over the globe? Again, worker-owned coops already exist. The Mondragon corporation in Spain is one of the largest companies in that country, and is a worker-owned coop. There are many examples in the US as well, like Ocean Spray. Just because you don’t believe something works doesn’t change reality.
Which is why people work together to create a system that makes getting that kind of power impossible, which is the entire point of socialism (especially 21st century socialism as described by Wolff). If you just give up, then the greedy psychopaths win by default. The phrase Marx used is “seize the means of production” and not “just accept that greed exists and let the owner class continue to own the means of production.”
Why? So the owner class can continue to have control over our society and continue to push our government towards fascism? No, thank you. Just because you have given up doesn’t mean everyone else should.
Ans how would this system avoid people being greedy?
All the things you worried about really do happen, it’s just that currently they’re done in the interests of wealthy investors instead of in the interests of the employees.