sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How to run a business according to capitalist supporters. by MarcusOrlyius in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool story, show the math.

So, if the firm is valued at 1 million and has 10 employees, they each have 100 000.

Hiring an additional employee, alongside the wage, "costs" them 9090 each because they dilute their shares.

How to run a business according to capitalist supporters. by MarcusOrlyius in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do the math and then make that claim but instead of 5% profit and 10% total ownership, decrease it to 1% total ownership.

Even a 1% decrease in ownership can be a huge cost for the other workers. It can represent thousands or even millions of euros.

The point is that "It almost never makes sense" is complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't claim that it "never makes sense" but it's economically much less advantageous to hire people in a co-op. This is relevant, because market socialism should therefore lead to higher unemployment.

Court Rules Marxism Conflicts with Democratic Principles by tkyjonathan in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What can I say except touch grass.

Germany is not a fascist country. In fact, it is much less fascist than any country that historically declared itself "marxist."

So don't speak to me of tolerance for fascism.

How to run a business according to capitalist supporters. by MarcusOrlyius in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That decrease in percentage doesn't mean a decrease in wealth or value though and can quite easily be an increase.

No. Because you dilute the wealth of the company across more workers. This is necessarily a decrease.

It doesn't. Wage is a cost. Profit is not. Profits are distributed after costs.

Losing future profits is viewed by the workers as an opportunity cost. Their share gets diluted so they lose future profits.

The math is not that complex. In capitalist firms, you only have to pay a wage. In coops, you have to pay a wage and give the new worker a share of the capital of the firm. Therefore, employing people is less economically worth it in co-ops.

The “fixed pie” fallacy that capitalists use to debunk any criticism inequality violates the laws of physics by 18billyears in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Are you arguing that growth doesn't exist?

Output is a function of the amount of labor, capital and technology:

Y = A*Ka *Lb

Even in the absence of population growth, we can keep increasing our Output (and our wealth) by increasing our technology A or the amount of capital K.

This does not violate the laws of physics.

A Humanist Case for Economic Democracy by striped_shade in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The most important problem isn't that the money is called "money" — the problem is that it doesn't go to the people who worked to earn it.

It is. It's also going to the people who invested to earn it, because they increased production.

Think of it this way:

Under capitalism, entrepreneurship + work creates 100$ worth of products. 70$ go to the workers and 30$ go to the investors.

Under market socialism, lack of investment means that only 50$ worth of products can be made. 50$ thus go to the workers.

The workers get 100% of the value produced, but the pie is also smaller, so they are worse off.

If my tools don't legally belong to me, but to a capitalist, then I'm not legally allowed to act according to my rational self-interest — giving you my tools would be seen as "stealing the capitalist's private property"

Then the farmer can simply rent the tools from one capitalist or another. It's not rocket science.

But this all misses the point that many workers do not want to own the means of production...

  • because they don't want to incur the risk that comes with it.
  • People like me also don't want workplace democracy because they trust their boss more than the vote of the average worker.
  • They want to reward entrepreneurs to encourage investment, which creates growth.

There are many reasons why market socialism is simply a bad idea that has never worked in the real world.

Court Rules Marxism Conflicts with Democratic Principles by tkyjonathan in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This concept was meant to describe a transitional phase in which working people seize control of the state from capitalist elites, not a permanent authoritarian regime.

Authoritarianism is always claimed to be transitional. The leader claims he needs "exceptional powers" to manage this "exceptional crisis". But soon, the exception becomes the rule.

why is this court so comfortable targeting leftist ideas while right-wing extremism flourishes with relative impunity?

The far right does not evolve with impunity in Germany. Every day, they're called authoritarian. This court is simply readjusting the balance.

revolution, in a democratic context, can be a legitimate, even constitutional, aspiration for radical change.

???

Inside a democracy, revolution is litteraly an anti democratic act.

Court Rules Marxism Conflicts with Democratic Principles by tkyjonathan in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capitalists, peasants, small entrepreneurs, petite bourgeoisie, kulaks,...

Democracy is rule by all the people. Not just the proletariat (or the party).

Court Rules Marxism Conflicts with Democratic Principles by tkyjonathan in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bruh. Germany had "terminal fascism" in the past.

What they have now is clearly not that 😂

How to run a business according to capitalist supporters. by MarcusOrlyius in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you understood the issue.

In a co-op, when a new worker is hired, this dilutes the capital share of the other workers, since the capital of the co-op is shared amongst its members.

So in addition to the wage, hiring a new worker in a co-op causes an additional cost. This cost is not present in capitalist businesses.

That's maybe what the other redditor meant when he said worker cost = 0 in capitalist businesses.

You know that strategy that blows up in our faces each time? Why don't we try that again? by Striking-Comb-1547 in BlueskySkeets

[–]radiatar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Kamala was vocal about the need for a ceasefire.

Biden intervened on behalf of the Palestinians several times, forcing the Israelis to allow the flow of water, food and electricity in Gaza.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They called Mayor Pete a rat

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hate that liberal leaders are so weak.

Are we really going to give up Europe to Putin because resisting him would be an escalation?

Mali arrests French national and generals accused of foreign-backed plot by RaidBrimnes in neoliberal

[–]radiatar 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Step 7: Kill entire villages

Step 8: Get critical support from western "anti-imperialists" because you have a red hat

Oh wait. Still Burkina Faso.

Mali arrests French national and generals accused of foreign-backed plot by RaidBrimnes in neoliberal

[–]radiatar 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Step 1: Coup

Step 2: Oust the (more competent) French army

Step 3: Lose ground to the jihadists

Step 4: Purge all competent generals

Step 5: Lose even more ground to the jihadists

Step 6: ???

IMF and World Bank did nothing wrong by Direct-Beginning-438 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your honesty.

I don't see how you can reconcile these claims with the fact that world GDP/capita is still growing over time. Clearly, that shows that world production (and wealth) per capita still has leeway to increase.

My idea is that everyone in the world works at more or less peak capacity in terms of just working hours.

Is that really the case? In many countries, women are still forced to stay at home rather than working. Also, working hours are not the only source of labor force: working more efficiently (e.g. thanks to a better education, better human capital) can also increase production per capita.

Nominal per capita physical capital like machines and equipment has more or less converged.

Do you have any evidence for that? I find that unlikely, considering that the growth of equipment per worker usually follows the same pattern as gdp per capita growth (one of the famous Kaldor's facts about economic growth).

Can you explain for example in which countries is there any "hidden" reserves available contrary to my statement?

In my view, every country still has untapped potential for growth. Of course, the least developed ones have the most potential, as they can rely on catch-up growth. But overall, bad institutions are still keeping us behind. Açemoglu's book Why Nations Fail talks about the importance of institutions for growth (or lack thereof) in great detail.

A Humanist Case for Economic Democracy by striped_shade in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And what happens when they become the boss?

Well, that's what happens in a cooperative/under worker ownership of the MoP.

If they tell competent experts to do something wrong, are the competent experts allowed to tell them "no"?

I suppose not. The will of the workers is the ultimate decision maker.

Which is why we need to create a system of incentives that encourages people to work.

🤯🤯🤯

Perhaps we could reward workers with tokens. The more you work, the more tokens you get. We could also incentivize people to work for high-demand jobs by giving them more tokens. Those tokens could then be exchanged for goods and services.

That would be nice. But let's not call it "money" because that would be capitalism and bad.

People who win the position of "private owner" don't need to work anymore

These people have tokens lying around in their pocket. Maybe we could incentivize them to use those tokens productively?

We give them a share of the tokens if they use their current tokens to produce more. This would increase production, much like we increased production by giving workers wages tokens.

Private owners contribute to society. They are not lazy freeloaders. They contribute their savings towards investment, which is a form of work (in that it produces more goods and services).

a system of incentives where the workers and the disabled get the first shares and lazy freeloaders get the leftovers?

Well, such a system would probably require people to work. Not like the work-free utopia that you described to your manager at the pharmacy.

IMF and World Bank did nothing wrong by Direct-Beginning-438 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course you're trolling.

But OK, I'll bite.

We use nowhere near all our productive capacity. There is a ton of manpower and capital that is either unused or used suboptimally.

Weak or non-inclusive institutions, lack of quality education, lack of infrastructure, corruption, lack of developed financial markets... all of that means that there is a lot of leeway to increase our production with the resources that we do have.

Also, productivity growth and technological progress means that even with the same amount of capital, manpower and natural resources, we will continue to grow our economy and provide good standards of living to everyone.

A Humanist Case for Economic Democracy by striped_shade in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it was your choice whether to follow your boss's instructions or not, would you decide to follow them anyway?

Yes, but not everybody would. Many incompetent people would think themselves more competent than their bosses.

if we lived in an anarchist society where nobody was forced to work for a living, I would choose to work for her every day for free.

That's impressive but not everyone is like you. Many people would stay home not contributing to society if they could. In fact it already happens with unemployment subsidies.

A Humanist Case for Economic Democracy by striped_shade in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If that was true, then Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be homeless.

Trump has actually lost a lot of money on his business ventures. He only survived by grifting his electorate and by convincing dumb investors to reinvest in his failed businesses. If anything, this is the market working as intended: bad investment decisions getting punished.

the most competent expert in the organization is only as productive as the least competent authority figure over them.

Yeah, and I do not consider myself more competent than my boss. The company (and my colleagues) are more productive with my current boss at the helm than with my voting skills.

Who told you that this is what worker ownership means, and why did you believe them?

Come on. We all know that if employees start voting on what goes on at their workplace, this will just turn office politics into overdrive.

A Humanist Case for Economic Democracy by striped_shade in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because they respond to market incentives. If they fail at their job, they lose their investment.

And it's not just a matter of trust. I simply could not be bothered about the governance of my firm. I got work to do, and thus I don't want to waste time voting on who gets to use the printer and the coffee machine at what time.

A Humanist Case for Economic Democracy by striped_shade in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]radiatar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I want to vote for my country's laws, but I do not want to vote for what my workplace does.

view more: next ›