Economic Classes explained - General

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419390]What exactly is this "risk"?[/QUOTE] Many business ideas are bad. People can be bad at running it, they can have a bad idea, people can not want what they are producing, etc. If any of those things happen, and the business fails, then the risk comes in.

[QUOTE=OvB;52419388]Now that just sounds like bad business.[/QUOTE] unfortunately thats how the western (and increasingly the global) economy operates. the key success is that it "smoothes" out risks and delays them to the future, at which point the people originally responsible for the decision are either dead/retired/too wealthy to care and can bounce somewhere else. the inevitable blowup is covered for by public expenditures as companies have gotten larger and larger they have become increasingly difficult for a single owner (or god forbid the many multitudes of owners) to exert influence on it when you have a vast bureaucracy to deal with. capitalists lost control over the means of production a long time ago

[QUOTE=sgman91;52419372]So you want all the people who are not going to own the business to take the risk instead of the workers who are going to own it? The risk is inevitable. If the workers who own the business aren't going to take the risk, then someone else has to.[/QUOTE] Society at large can take that risk, whatever risk still exists after having done away with profit motives.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419393]If all the employees had one of those papers and share all the benefits of the business, you would see large increases in living standards. Especially in the third world. Seems like a waste of resources to only give one or two guys the papers.[/QUOTE] More assumptions that don't pan out in reality. Unless they secure a very specific niche, workers cooperatives tend to under-perform. There's loads of coops in the west you can join, and there was yugoslavia which was an economy based on cooperatives. I'll even link left-com bae [url]https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=RB33;52419393]only give one or two guys the papers.[/QUOTE] Your understanding of business seems extremely lacking if this is how you think ownership works.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419390]What exactly is this "risk"?[/QUOTE] They make decisions on where the company is supposed to head, what new products it should produce, and other things like that. These are very important and risky decisions, obviously.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419382]That doesn't mean your socialism will work, so it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE] It means that an economic system doesn't work without the correct circumstances, as with socialism. [QUOTE=sgman91;52419397]Assuming you also reformed their absolutely corrupt government, then sure it would work.[/QUOTE] And reforming a capitalist country into a socialist one would also work.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52419403]Many business ideas are bad. People can be bad a running it, they can have a bad idea, etc. If any of those things happen, and the business fails, then the risk comes in.[/QUOTE] If a company is run as a worker's collective with no bosses and consensus decision making and all that jazz, the workers will have to agree among themselves to take on any risk they face. In this kind of society the risk probably wouldn't be as big as it is in today's capitalist society, since your basic needs would be met even if your business fails.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419405]Society at large can take that risk, whatever risk still exists after having done away with profit motives.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by the profit motives being gone? Firstly, the workers who own the business are still going to want to make as much profit as they can. Secondly, IF you were to take away profit incentive, then the risk would be higher not lower because you're taking away incentive to stay away from risk. Profit is information. It's what lets you know whether you are using resources efficiently or not.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419411]It means that an economic system doesn't work without the correct circumstances, as with socialism.[/QUOTE] Any economic system can work under the correct circumstances. Feudalism could work in a kingdom of valiant knights and noble lords who care for their people.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419415]I'm not sure how you interpreted RB33 in saying the the workers shouldn't take on this risk, I think in this case they should. If a company is run as a worker's collective with no bosses and consensus decision making and all that jazz, the workers will have to agree among themselves to take on any risk they face. In this kind of society the risk probably wouldn't be as big as it is in today's capitalist society, since your basic needs would be met even if your business fails.[/QUOTE] He said that we should make it easier in response to me saying most people don't want to take on that kind of risk. The only rational assumption was that he's talking about making it less risky.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419411]It means that an economic system doesn't work without the correct circumstances, as with socialism. And reforming a capitalist country into a socialist one would also work.[/QUOTE] You have to demonstrate socialism can work under those conditions, before you make your statements. That's what I'm getting at.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419411]And reforming a capitalist country into a socialist one would also work.[/QUOTE] There's no reason to think that is true while there's tons of evidence that capitalism is beneficial to nations with authoritarian economic policies (like China).

People will just find a way to cheat the system like they always have. Doesn't matter if it's a capitalist or socialist society. There will always be someone with more money and influence than you. The biggest problem is that everything sounds nice on paper, but once you get a system going you quickly see it's flaws. People always forget to account for the most rogue variable of them all, human beings.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52419416]What do you mean by the profit motives being gone? Firstly, the workers who own the business are still going to want to make as much profit as they can. Secondly, IF you were to take away profit incentive, then the risk would be higher not lower because you're taking away incentive to stay away from risk. Profit is information. It's what lets you know whether you are using resources efficiently or not.[/QUOTE] In market socialism, companies that produce stuff are supposed to only make enough to break even, and any profits are directly remunerated to the workers or to society.

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52419424]People will just find a way to cheat the system like they always have. Doesn't matter if it's a capitalist or socialist society. There will always be someone with more money and influence than you. The biggest problem is that everything sounds nice on paper, but once you get a system going you quickly see it's flaws. People always forget to account for the most rogue variable of them all, human beings.[/QUOTE] that's why you build a system which can survive people and their fuckups and flaws (or even better, one that can benefit from them) the ancients and medievals figured that out, although most intelluctual-yet-idiot types today haven't

[QUOTE=sgman91;52419416]What do you mean by the profit motives being gone? Firstly, the workers who own the business are still going to want to make as much profit as they can. Secondly, IF you were to take away profit incentive, then the risk would be higher not lower because you're taking away incentive to stay away from risk. Profit is information. It's what lets you know whether you are using resources efficiently or not.[/QUOTE] Once proper socialism is in place, capitalism is abolished. Or you can just keep an eye on the demands of the people and how well that demand is fulfilled. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52419421]You have to demonstrate socialism can work under those conditions, before you make your statements. That's what I'm getting at.[/QUOTE] So, Comrade, let's topple the state tomorrow and build a great new world! We won't know until we try it in practice. The 18th century aspiring capitalist couldn't prove his system before it was in place.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419431]In market socialism, companies that produce stuff are supposed to only make enough to break even, and any profits are directly remunerated to the workers or to society.[/QUOTE] How does the company innovate and grow? If the company cannot reinvest in itself then there's no chance that company can develop new technology to increase production or better the customers.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419441]Once proper socialism is in place, capitalism is abolished. Or you can just keep an eye on the demands of the people and how well that demand is fulfilled. [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] So, Comrade, let's topple the state tomorrow and build a great new world! We won't know until we try it in practice. The 18th century aspiring capitalist couldn't prove his system before it was in place.[/QUOTE] This is incredibly short sighted.

[QUOTE=OvB;52419459]How does the company innovate and grow? If the company cannot reinvest in itself then there's no chance that company can develop new technology to increase production or better the customers.[/QUOTE] One solution is to pool their resources together into a public research organisation, which would share the breakthroughs of all its scientists.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419441] So, Comrade, let's topple the state tomorrow and build a great new world! We won't know until we try it in practice. The 18th century aspiring capitalist couldn't prove his system before it was in place.[/QUOTE] But I'm happy enough with the growth created by this system, and all attempts to create REAL SOCIALISM have died or degenerated into dictatorship. I'm not gonna be your economic experiment lmao. And not really, capitalism emerged as a consequence of the conditions of the time. This part is somewhat correct about historical materialism that you can't just ram whatever system you want into society.

[QUOTE=OvB;52419459]How does the company innovate and grow? If the company cannot reinvest in itself then there's no chance that company can develop new technology to increase production or better the customers.[/QUOTE] Growth, competition and monopolies are discouraged. Companies stay afloat and produce the things they produce, they don't evolve into big corporations like in capitalism, they just stay afloat to the best of their ability. As for innovation, I'm sure the workers could agree by consensus to reinvest for that purpose, or as RB33 said, throw their money into a third-party research organisation or anyone else with the means to tinker and experiment.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419475]One solution is to pool their resources together into a public research organisation, which would share the breakthroughs of all its scientists.[/QUOTE] public research organisations don't produce innovation (well, much of it) the vast bulk of it comes around completely by accident usually, often in small businesses where amateurs tinker with things

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52419486]public research organisations don't produce innovation (well, much of it) the vast bulk of it comes around completely by accident usually, often in small businesses where amateurs tinker with things[/QUOTE] Well, people aren't forbidden to tinker. They would probably have more free time than ever before to do it.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419485]Growth, competition and monopolies are discouraged. Companies stay afloat and produce the things they produce, they don't evolve into big corporations like in capitalism, they just stay afloat to the best of their ability. As for innovation, I'm sure the workers could agree by consensus to reinvest for that purpose.[/QUOTE] The economy instead just stagnates with the sovereign drowning in debt and food imports to keep it afloat. (hi again yugoslavia)

[QUOTE=sgman91;52419403]Many business ideas are bad. People can be bad at running it, they can have a bad idea, people can not want what they are producing, etc. If any of those things happen, and the business fails, then the risk comes in.[/QUOTE] The risk is not the same for a poor person and a wealthy person. A wealthy person tries to start a company and fails, they're less wealthy. A poor person tries to start a company and fails, they're fucking bankrupt. Not to even speak about the differences in education and economical experience due to the wealth disparity, or the connections formed through wealthy parents.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419498]Well, people aren't forbidden to tinker. They would probably have more free time than ever before to do it.[/QUOTE] i'd rather there be lots of small businesses which are free to innovate (but break up the big ones)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52419516]i'd rather there be lots of small businesses which are free to innovate (but break up the big ones)[/QUOTE] That's pretty much the exact society that I want, but controlled by the workers and no hierarchies.

[QUOTE=RB33;52419475]One solution is to pool their resources together into a public research organisation, which would share the breakthroughs of all its scientists.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=UnknownDude;52419485]Growth, competition and monopolies are discouraged. Companies stay afloat and produce the things they produce, they don't evolve into big corporations like in capitalism, they just stay afloat to the best of their ability. As for innovation, I'm sure the workers could agree by consensus to reinvest for that purpose, or as RB33 said, throw their money into a third-party research organisation or anyone else with the means to tinker and experiment.[/QUOTE] A country like this would be stagnant and still run on coal and horses. Capitalism is the driver of innovation. Look at the Space industry. Government didn't want to touch it after they beat the soviets. It took a capitalist to jump start the entire industry with SpaceX. Now that [I]company[/I] is launching more rockets than any other [I]country[/I] on earth, providing you with better communications by satellites owned by other capitalists. Collectives can't agree on shit. That's why publicly traded businesses are hard in their ways. Investors are only interested in themselves and their own profits. If company A is owned by its workers and someone says hey lets take a huge risk and invest in electric cars that will be great for the environment, most of the people are going to tell him to fuck off because I have a family of 4 to feed and if this idea fails our little thing going here is going to hurt and I won't get my money. It takes risk and guts to produce groundbreaking technology. It takes an entrepreneur every now and then to stick their neck out and take the risk of a huge reward. If everything is owned by everyone, that entrepreneur is going to get snuffed out, and innovation and progress will be slashed to a snails pace. We don't need Teslas when we all drive Corollas, there goes most innovation in battery powered cars. We don't need iphones when we have publicly funded phones all over. Capitalism, entrepreneurship, and reward are the driving factor behind these things. A Marxist world will be a stagnate, beige, boring sad little land. Because most people just want to be comfortable and live their life, which is fine! But it's terrible for making risky decisions. We need that 1/10,000,000 person to really challenge the norm. Which won't happen when the other 9,999,999 just want to stamp out Skoda's and go home after work at factory A, and your third-party research organization wouldn't be interested in making those innovations because material goods are frowned upon in this world. It would be busy making sure we all lived in the same little mass produced house, with the same mass produced and boring cars, while eating the same canned food on the same bland furniture. Good capitalism is the light in a dark house. It is responsible for everything you own. Including things that received government funding.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52419516]i'd rather there be lots of small businesses which are free to innovate (but break up the big ones)[/QUOTE] In what regards do you mean small? How can a small company make a multi billion dollar infrastructure decision to build a factory to produce ships or cars? Does that mean every state or locality is going to need a factory that builds cars? How am I going to source parts for my car if I get my Texas Cars vehicle and move to Vermont and then it breaks down, but the only people in that state are Vermont Cars and they don't use the same part? Now I have to have it shipped to me, but that would involve high prices because the third party logistics company in Vermont is going to have a hard time shipping the product through multiple companies because there's no national carrier. It's going to be all kinds of expensive when you forbid economies of scale.