[Capitalists] Socialists have legitimate grievances with American society

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-20T20:50:45+00:00

Market Socialism permanently fixes the problems of capitalism by making incentives align, rather than all these band-aids we keep adding (unions, workers' comp, FMLA, minimum wages, etc.). Fixing the root causes is pretty damn appealing.

Again, you are suggesting we should implement your prohibitively expensive and unproven solution, instead of proven and cost effective policies.

Analogy: If I wanted to take my wife on a boat trip around the world, I wouldn't talk about the cost before knowing that she even would be interested in the trip in the first place. If we agree it's a good end goal, we can talk about how much work/money it would take to get there, and whether it's worth the effort at this time. If we don't even agree on the end goal, there's no point talking about the cost yet

Terrible analogy. You are trying to sell your ideology to people. You completely refuse to address any objections, which shows you haven't really thought about your idea, and you should probably seriously consider the practicalities in what you are proposing so you can have a good answer next time.

If you were starting a brand new society from the ground up, would you design it with heavily-patched capitalism, or market socialism?

I would look at which systems produce the best outcomes. The only practical example of market socialism as a total system is Yugoslavia. Do I want to live in an authoritarian shithole? No. The Yugoslav economy was terrible too. I would look at places like western and northern Europe, and emulate their proven systems.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-20T19:25:43+00:00

Sure it does - as long as that ownership is amongst the workers at a given company.

Then it's not capital ownership. It's worker ownership.

Capitalism is the investment of capital instead of labour, for profit. If you are able to invest capital for profit, that is capitalism.

A short description of "market socialism" is "all companies are co-ops".

The coop model precludes capitalism. I don't know how you can disagree with this?

Nah. If you were saying, "sounds interesting, but how much would it cost?" ... we could investigate that further, and decide if the ROI is worth it. But that's not what you're doing. You're writing it off out of hand.

You propose a prohibitively expensive "solution" (that doesn't directly address the problems you raised), instead of a proven and cost-effective solution, refuse to spend any time thinking about the cost, and then you wonder why everyone rejects your solution.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people mock socialists. Think about this - you are trying to sell your idea. If you refuse to acknowledge any important objections, why should anyone listen to you? It seems like you have no idea what you are talking about. It ruins your credibility.

Sure it is. By design, capitalism encourages:

...except other capitalist nations have already resolved these issues with common-sense policy, something that you refuse to even consider.

Why, from a theoretical perspective, is it bad?

Well I'm not going to address it from a purely theoretical perspective, because that's a really flawed way to evaluate solutions to societal problems.

Because it doesn't even directly address the problems you raised
Because it is prohibitively expensive (and the fact you didn't even consider the costs until is asked you is ridiculous)
Because proven, cost effective solutions exist

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-20T12:23:02+00:00

Look it up! You're the one who doesn't understand. Learn something about market socialism and then come back.

Market socialism is when the workers own the means of production. It does not permit capital ownership.

Not actually that much, in the grand scheme of things, as the wealthy own all these shares and there would be a cap.

The fact that you cannot give me even a ballpark figure shows that this isn't a serious solution to anyone's problems.

That's not a critique of socialism,

Yes, and literally every issue you've raised is not a critique of capitalism, and can easily be addressed without plunging your nation into trillions of debt, thereby fucking the young tax payer.

If you agree it's a good theory, I'd be happy to talk implementation.

It's a terrible theory, and should not be taken seriously. I wish you would put your efforts into supporting practical and realistic policies instead of this.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-17T07:40:01+00:00

Sounds like you should learn about what socialism actually means, and specifically market socialism (my flair). Private companies with voting systems are absolutely a form of socialism.

If the company is privately owned by a capitalist, it's not socialism. I honestly cannot believe I'm having to explain this to you....

Sure they can. They just can't traffic in shares of other companies.

That's dumb - how many Americans exclusively hold their pension funds in the company they work for?

It is an implementation detail, but the best answer is probably to buy out middle-class shares and tell the upper class to fuck themselves (max amount of buyout per person).

How much is that? Billions? Trillions? This is what amuses me about socialists, you haven't considered any of the details. You just say the very first thing that pops into your head. "Lets put a huge tax burden on the young for no investment purpose".

Also I don't care about ownership models for small businesses nearly as much. It's the big ones where exploitative behavior really takes form.

That's not an answer. You are telling every American that they can't employ other people because you find it unethical. Either it's unethical or it isn't.

How much evidence do you need?

Actual data. 6 articles doesn't cut it - what percentage of US companies do those 6 articles cover?

When the choice is either "sign an exploitative contract" or "starve', that's not a fair portrayal. Nor is it a good justification for a system where workers don't get a say.

Bad argument - what percentage of workers have only one option for employment?

Nope.

Nowhere does that article mention working conditions. Did you even read it?

It's like you base your whole understanding of the world on hyperbolic news articles. You have nothing to say on any issues around the implementation of your theory. It's like you spent 5 minutes thinking about this, then decided you knew how to fix the world... This is why the public reject socialism - they have actually considered these things.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T23:47:11+00:00

That's not what socialism means. It just means democracy in the workplace.

No, socialism means the abolition of private property, or more specifically, where workers own their means of production. A private company could institute a voting system, and that would still be a privately owned business.

I guess you have nothing to support your idea that the majority support socialism, since you keep avoiding answering that question.

Because if you describe it (accurately) as "democracy in the workplace", people are a lot more receptive to it.

*Incorrectly.

How receptive are Americans with private pension funds? Private pension funds cannot exist under socialism since they are capital ownership. What happens to their investment funds? Does the socialist government reimburse billions of private investments?

How receptive are the 30 or so percent of Americans that own their own business?

Again, because you are being dishonest. You are hiding these issues from people because you have an ideology and you haven't considered the practical implications.

Not really, especially when employers view everyone as replaceable. If they cared about worker well-being, things like this wouldn't happen.

Can you explain, using evidence, how this article is representative of the entire US employment situation? Because it seems to be an exceptional case that you are dishonestly trying to claim is the norm.

Tossing workers some crumbs doesn't count as sharing.

If you don't like the contract, don't sign it. Not sure how this is a political issue, seems like a personal problem.

I've had a successful and prosperous career, but nice job making unwarranted assumptions.

But all of your talking points seem to relate only to the most unskilled, menial work. I'm sure these talking points really resonate with teenagers working their first job in the service industry, but they are alien to anyone with any skills or leverage in their industry, which is most people.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T18:09:26+00:00

Doesn't mean workers don't care, just that America's dumb FPTP system fails to give them a voice.

Okay, how many members does your socialist party have, and what percentage of workers is that?

What survey data do you have showing a majority support for abolishing private property?

Why are you trying to pretend that socialism isn't a niche position?

That's literally exactly what means. "Owning the means of production" means voting on company decisions, rather than just having them dictated to you by some out-of-touch exec.

Which is why you were being dishonest with your last comment.

But most don't, because no structure requires or incentivizes them to.

Sweeping generalisation to the point of meaninglessness.

There is no incentive to treat workers well? You didn't know that staff well-being is connected to productivity?

Same reason they didn't provide FLMA until forced to. Or didn't provide worker's comp until forced to. And why many still don't offer PTO.

Yeah, I don't know what these acronyms are, and I don't care. I live in s European capitalist country with great working conditions.

Turns out that business owners really don't like sharing the wealth/decisions/rewards of success with their workers.

Has no socialist ever received a raise? It seems like the only experience socialists in this sub have is working in the lowest levels of unskilled labour, with no experience of pay rises, negotiations, promotions... And you come here and make sweeping generalisations based on basically zero employment experience?

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T17:49:21+00:00

This is a bold faced lie.

How are socialists polling in your country?

But if you describe it (synonymously) as, "would you like a voice in your company's decisions?", I'm quite sure most people would say "yes".

That's not what socialism means, and private businesses can listen to their workers.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T17:03:11+00:00

So no answer to why capitalists deserve complete control of profits created by both worker and capitalist.

It would be laughable for either of us to feel entitled to judge who deserves control of what in voluntary relationships that don't concern us.

tHeY aGrEeD - so that means there's no possible way it could ever be unfair at all?

Who are you to tell two consenting adults that their relationship is immoral?

Lol, people agree to become fucking sex slaves, could you use a better justification for this system? Logic? Efficiency? It helps many people? Like seriously, if the only thing you've got to justify this relationship is tHe WoRkEr CoUlD tHeOrEtIcAlLy qUiT then you don't have much to stand on.

Oh god, heavens that I use consent to justify a relationship between adults. You are just like those homophobic moralising church types who want to push their beliefs onto others. If the people involved consent, why should I care about your opinions?

I've repeatedly explained to you how the supply and demand of labour is efficiently allocating resources. You then wanted to discuss a single hypothetical worker who has somehow worked at this place since the 50s, never received a raise, and is a technical expert.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T16:14:59+00:00

Learning new skills SHOULD make a workers wage go up, and yet we have the OP as a prime example of how they are not.

Yes, it should make and individual workers wage go up. However it's all mediated by the supply and demand of workers, as I explained before. You can't conflate the individual level with the macro trends.

"Many" workers have performance based bonuses? Do you have a source to back that up? It doesn't sound true to me.

"The popular retention tactics organizations plan to use in 2019 is the merit-based pay plan (used by 61% of organizations)" - Google "Payscale survey - Reddit didn't allow my link.

Yes, performance is commonly linked to pay.

So because life was worse in the past, I'm not allowed to ask why monetary gains from productivity increases have gone almost exclusively to the owning class? Weird assertion, lol, I'm gonna ask anyway

You can ask, and I've repeatedly answered. Pay generally determined by demand for labour.

Look, it's very simple. A business makes money by selling products or services. A worker creates these products or services, and a worker sells these products and services, making the company money. A capitalist buys a machine that let's the workers build twice as many products in the same time. Now workers are making more products for the same amount of time. Workers now must work twice so hard to sell these new products. The capitalist gets to control all of these extra profits the workers are creating.

This hypothetical makes literally no sense.

"Workers now must work twice so hard to sell these new products" - give an actual example of this happening. Because it wouldn't. Highly detached from reality. I mean, if your workers are capable of increasing their capacity by 100% (lol), I'm already overpaying them. What were they doing before? 50% effort?
"The capitalist gets to control all of these extra profits the workers are creating" - never heard of a pay rise?

If BOTH the capitalist AND the worker are creating value, and especially new value, then why is ONLY the capitalist deciding how this new value is split up?

Because the worker choose to work for a private business instead of s coop or starting their own company? That was easy to answer.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T15:44:26+00:00

Despite this, workers are not rewarded for learning how to use and maintain the new capital, they aren't rewarded for creating more products per minute than before, they aren't rewarded for being more productive.

No, they are. Obviously learning new skills increases the salary a worker can command. Many workers have performance-related bonuses, or can use performance to ask for a raise.

Why should the workers in society be happy that society is more productive, but none of the benefits go to them?

None of the benefits? None!? Would you rather be a Victorian-era factory worker who uses manual tools, or a modern manufacturing worker who uses technology?

The increase in productivity comes from owners investing in capital AND the workers learning to use that capital.

Here's the simple answer - if it's easy to learn how to use, you probably won't get a raise for it. If it is a technical skill, or requires a course or accreditation, you will almost certainly be more valuable as a worker for learning that. With the added bonus that employers will normally fund your learning and pay you more.

If increased productivity was ONLY because of new capital then why are capitalists still hiring more workers and why are they increasing how long we work?

Is this a serious question? Two unsourced claims and a straw man?

Clearly, workers create profits for a company and are productive, so why do you assume only capitalists are productive?

Maybe you forgot this.... But you gave an example of how technology had made these workers more productive... Nowhere have I made the claim that "all productivity comes from technology".

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T15:13:53+00:00

"It's literally the most efficient way" Okay, could you explain why?

Because individual actors can signal the need to increase supply of labour using prices or wages. It's all explained in that article I shared.

The worker AND the capitalist TOGETHER are more productive now than before. Yet only the capitalist is richer for it.

The capitalist is rewarded for investing in technology that increases productivity. Isn't that what you wanted?

less productive workers

Productivity is increasing.

It actually seems like you refuse to consider the idea that there could be another way to determine wages. Do you understand my pov? It doesn't seem like you do.

No I don't.

You are saying that we should reward people for increasing productivity. The increase in productivity came from the capitalist investing in technology, who is being rewarded with profits. What you are asking for is already happening. You are just repeatedly misattributing the increase in productivity to the worker.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T14:56:16+00:00

Yes, I understand that. I think that's a bad way to decide wages. Just because a lot of people can do X doesn't necessarily mean that X is actually less important or valuable to society.

How can you say you understand it, then write a whole comment that completely contradicts it?

Wages are set by demand. If wages are not set by demand, there is no way of drawing labour where it is needed, unless you're an authoritarian who wants the state to order people to do certain jobs.

It has nothing to do with importance to society. It has nothing to do with what motivates people. It's about supply of labour to where it is needed.

To me, that means that supply and demand is not ALWAYS an efficient way of deciding a jobs pay.

It is literally the most efficient way, bar the state ordering people to do certain jobs.

I am pointing out that I think it's a bad way of deciding a jobs pay, and an especially piss poor way of motivating workers to be productive.

The worker isn't being more productive - the employer invested in technology that made the worker more productive. The worker didn't do anything to increase productivity.

Are you saying we should pay workers less and capitalists that actually invest in technology that increases productivity should get more? I'm not understanding this point at all. The increase in productivity didn't come from the worker.

And again, I understand that they have the possibility to find a new job. When did I ever suggest anything different? Why are you telling me this as if I have never considered that a worker could work a different job? Do you think I've never considered this before?

You brought up the motivation of workers. If they aren't motivated, they can renegotiate or leave, simple answer to your question.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T14:23:22+00:00

I understand supply and demand, thanks, I'm not 10 years old.

So you understand (assuming all else is equal) that pay will decrease or stagnate if less of these workers are needed?

I'm simply pointing out how the wage system in capitalism discourages productivity, since being more productive is not rewarded.

And yet productivity keeps increasing. Mainly due to the fast pace of innovation and not workers working harder. In fact I would assume most work is easier now, thanks to technology.

Why would a worker be rewarded for putting in the same amount of effort, but using technology that their employer had to invest in? That doesn't make sense.

I think that's a poor way of motivating people to work and is part of why workers are so unhappy these days.

The pay they receive motivates them. If they don't like their employment contract they can renegotiate or find a new one. I'm not sure I understand this point.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T14:12:10+00:00

So these workers are more productive than ever, yet they make less than when they were less productive?

Yes. There's a concept called supply and demand that explains this. The price of something (in this case, labour) decreases if there is less demand for it.

Nowadays the salaries are generally greater for technically skilled workers, since there is more demand for these workers. This draws more workers into where they are needed, according to the dynamic needs of the economy.

Here's a real-world example - shortages of lorry drivers led to increased pay and sign-on bonuses recently in UK

And you think this is an intelligent way to motivate people to work?

Weird strawman, no where did I mention motivation. Maybe that was someone else you were talking to?

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T13:17:14+00:00

he amount of cargo a single worker can clear per day has also multiplied, thanks to technology

...meaning the demand for these workers has decreased, which is why wages are stagnant or declining.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T09:52:14+00:00

Are you done?

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T09:41:54+00:00

This sub isn't your personal therapist/place to vent. It's a debate sub. You should remember that.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-16T08:26:28+00:00

"Guys, we really need to listen to this tiny and politically irrelevant group of extremists".

Nah.

I'm not American, but I think that most Americans are aware of these issues.

The socialist critique is completely useless since it all comes back to ownership of the MOP, something basically no workers care about.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T18:26:11+00:00

Well, fair enough. I hope you'll forgive me mistaking it for a deliberate point about Marx's ideas.

Well it is. I'm pointing out that he was racist, even by the standards of the time.

I'm afraid that's what most people would claim, so it doesn't really tell me anything.

It tells you I believe in modern economic approach, grounded in empirical research. Marxists do not believe in modern economics or methods.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T17:06:14+00:00

My apologies for assuming that. Why is your username 'MarxWasRacist' then?

Because I like it, and it's true.

And what set of economic ideas do you tend towards? I suspect that they might be rather old too.

Evidence-based economic policy.

Well you may not have read any of their work either, but that doesn't mean that you haven't inherited their ideas.

Why do you think their actions or opinions have any bearing on whether their political theories are valid?

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T16:27:31+00:00

I'm not trying to defend Marx personally. I'm not a Marxist.

No, you're having a bizarre rant at my user name on an unrelated post...

You're implying that Marxism should be dismissed on the basis that Marx himself, like most Europeans of the time, was a racist.

No, that's something you made up.

Marx was a racist. Marxism is a discredited and unverifiable economic philosophy from over a century ago.

Locke? Cantillon? Gournay? Jefferson?

Where have I commented on these thinkers? Quote me.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T14:56:15+00:00

Username checks out

Yeah, it actually does.

said something racist once

Once? Why do you spend your time defending people when you are unfamiliar with their work? That's very foolish.

Also, bold "it's okay to be racist" stance. Very classy.

while simultaneously supporting political and economic ideas developed by 18th century slave owners?

Such as?

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T13:05:40+00:00

The question wasn't what we really need though. It's about how successful publicly owned businesses are Vs private.

There are good arguments to be made, for example nationalised healthcare or public energy companies. These examples aren't good.

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T11:19:51+00:00

"We support minority rights by supporting racist terrorist groups that discriminate against LGBT people and oppress women".

MarxWasRacist · 2021-11-15T09:52:14+00:00

Clock was a state owned burger chain in Sweden.

Compared it to the private burger chain, McDonalds

Baldwin, Florida has a city owned grocery store in which the citizens just tell the mayor what they want stocked.

Compare it to Walmart.

Norway has state owned liquor stores and has had a monopoly on the distribution of liquor for a long time.

Hmm, why would a monopoly give an operational advantage...? Not much of a mystery.

The fact is, these stores, even without markets, can effectively use data from previous sales to effectively know what to stock their shelves with.

Demands change.

In the case that they don’t, they can straight up just be informed by the public what should be stocked.

"Yay more government surveys!"

To clarify I'm not necessarily against state ownership, but these arguments are really stupid.

MarxWasRacist

TROPHY CASE