I just responded the same idea to someone else so I apologize if I get confused between the two. But if I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is this man has a billion dollars in assets but he needs them to do his work which is beneficial for people. This work is in rockets.
I’d submit to you that he doesn’t need to privately own a billion dollars worth of assets for this. People need a lot of equipment for their jobs, but these things can be owned in common, whether that’s through a co-op or through state ownership. Collectivizing the means of production is the ethical way to go. Everyone should have an equal claim to their workplace and an equal say in what goes on there.
The way we let people privately own companies now is more akin to monarchy than the democracy we think of as the bare minimum everywhere else. The workplace should be democracized.
if I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is this man has a billion dollars in assets but he needs them to do his work which is beneficial for people.
I’m not sure this is really the correct description of the situation. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but the fact that his company is valued at 1 billion doesn’t mean the assets are worth 1 billion.
People have assigned this value to the company based on assets, yes, and on the workforce and etc. But they are also assigning value to the company based on what direction they think the company will be lead. Ask yourself this - if their CEO is a genius who has proven time and again that he can make magic happen with very little worth of value, wouldn’t you invest in him? Wouldn’t you say his company, while maybe poor and shit today, will probably be worth a billion dollars soon thanks to its leadership?
Two issues come from this, both that I don’t think you account for - because you argue for workers owning the company in a co-op-like situation, or the CEO selling assets the company doesn’t need in order to put that billion to good use:
If the CEO starts dumping stock - so will everyone else. Selling stock means you don’t think the company is that valuable. If you don’t trust it, why should I? The company’s price would tank, and so would any potential it has
If workers are the decision makers, not the genius CEO that everyone trusts to lead - guess how much I’m investing in a company ran by faceless dudes that I don’t trust. Exactly $0. You make this company a co-op and you guarantee the main attraction about it is no longer attractive. And at that point if I’m the CEO I’m out anyway - you obviously don’t trust my leadership enough to let me run the company, why would I ever want to stay? But good luck competing against the face of rockets with your cute little co-op that gets no funding and can’t pay it’s employees.
My point is - you want to reap the benefits of capitalism and investments in the stock market, while living in a socialist utopia where your actions on the market don’t have consequences. I’m not sure that’ll work.
The communism / capitalism debate is an interesting one. Each system has its advantages, and I am a strong believer in a strong compromise between the two extremes.
I don’t think that workplaces should be collectivized as a default. I also think that strong regulation and “big” government is a positive thing. The government should set the rules, for the benefit of all, but the game should be open to all players.
I am also a very strong believer that there are some activities that are far too important to leave up to the market.
Health care
Education
Infrastructure
Water
Waste
Roading
Public transport
Communications
Social welfare
For everything else, let the market decide. Collective ownership of cafes and hardware stores isn’t really something that needs to happen. But I would also be happy if a collectively owned cafe opened up nearby, I would give them the same weight as all other cafes (how good is your coffee).
I feel you and I would agree on most issues. I would urge you to be skeptical of capitalism and the profit incentive and how it can cause harm even small ventures like cafes.
To me, the ultimate problem that capitalism and the wealth concentration that it allows presents is the ability of the individuals with this concentrated wealth to use it either legally or illegally to bend the state to their will. In the states we are all too familiar with this with lobbying. Once this happens, democracy is undermined and oligarchy begins in my opinion.
Looking from the outside, what the US has lacked is the “strong regulation” part.
In my opinion the US is way too far on the capitalist side of the slider, you are not at “pure capitalism” yet. But sometimes it doesn’t seem like you have far to go.
Private prisons are just a ridiculous, over reach of profit making into what is at its core a social problem that requires social solutions.
I can totally get that perspective. From here looking at countries in Europe move in our direction makes me think that allowing a little bit of the capitalist corruption in makes your system susceptible to slowly being consumed(deregulated and welfare state gutted).
I’m not too familiar with New Zealand politics but I’m sure they’re a hell of a lot better than ours lol.
I just responded the same idea to someone else so I apologize if I get confused between the two. But if I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is this man has a billion dollars in assets but he needs them to do his work which is beneficial for people. This work is in rockets.
I’d submit to you that he doesn’t need to privately own a billion dollars worth of assets for this. People need a lot of equipment for their jobs, but these things can be owned in common, whether that’s through a co-op or through state ownership. Collectivizing the means of production is the ethical way to go. Everyone should have an equal claim to their workplace and an equal say in what goes on there.
The way we let people privately own companies now is more akin to monarchy than the democracy we think of as the bare minimum everywhere else. The workplace should be democracized.
I’m not sure this is really the correct description of the situation. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but the fact that his company is valued at 1 billion doesn’t mean the assets are worth 1 billion.
People have assigned this value to the company based on assets, yes, and on the workforce and etc. But they are also assigning value to the company based on what direction they think the company will be lead. Ask yourself this - if their CEO is a genius who has proven time and again that he can make magic happen with very little worth of value, wouldn’t you invest in him? Wouldn’t you say his company, while maybe poor and shit today, will probably be worth a billion dollars soon thanks to its leadership?
Two issues come from this, both that I don’t think you account for - because you argue for workers owning the company in a co-op-like situation, or the CEO selling assets the company doesn’t need in order to put that billion to good use:
If the CEO starts dumping stock - so will everyone else. Selling stock means you don’t think the company is that valuable. If you don’t trust it, why should I? The company’s price would tank, and so would any potential it has
If workers are the decision makers, not the genius CEO that everyone trusts to lead - guess how much I’m investing in a company ran by faceless dudes that I don’t trust. Exactly $0. You make this company a co-op and you guarantee the main attraction about it is no longer attractive. And at that point if I’m the CEO I’m out anyway - you obviously don’t trust my leadership enough to let me run the company, why would I ever want to stay? But good luck competing against the face of rockets with your cute little co-op that gets no funding and can’t pay it’s employees.
My point is - you want to reap the benefits of capitalism and investments in the stock market, while living in a socialist utopia where your actions on the market don’t have consequences. I’m not sure that’ll work.
The communism / capitalism debate is an interesting one. Each system has its advantages, and I am a strong believer in a strong compromise between the two extremes.
I don’t think that workplaces should be collectivized as a default. I also think that strong regulation and “big” government is a positive thing. The government should set the rules, for the benefit of all, but the game should be open to all players.
I am also a very strong believer that there are some activities that are far too important to leave up to the market.
For everything else, let the market decide. Collective ownership of cafes and hardware stores isn’t really something that needs to happen. But I would also be happy if a collectively owned cafe opened up nearby, I would give them the same weight as all other cafes (how good is your coffee).
I feel you and I would agree on most issues. I would urge you to be skeptical of capitalism and the profit incentive and how it can cause harm even small ventures like cafes.
To me, the ultimate problem that capitalism and the wealth concentration that it allows presents is the ability of the individuals with this concentrated wealth to use it either legally or illegally to bend the state to their will. In the states we are all too familiar with this with lobbying. Once this happens, democracy is undermined and oligarchy begins in my opinion.
Looking from the outside, what the US has lacked is the “strong regulation” part.
In my opinion the US is way too far on the capitalist side of the slider, you are not at “pure capitalism” yet. But sometimes it doesn’t seem like you have far to go.
Private prisons are just a ridiculous, over reach of profit making into what is at its core a social problem that requires social solutions.
I can totally get that perspective. From here looking at countries in Europe move in our direction makes me think that allowing a little bit of the capitalist corruption in makes your system susceptible to slowly being consumed(deregulated and welfare state gutted).
I’m not too familiar with New Zealand politics but I’m sure they’re a hell of a lot better than ours lol.
It has gotten worse since trump showed that the truth is optional for politics.
But yes, still better.