It is the form of wealth distribution, but is not the concern of capitalism.
And yes, we did had capitalism that far back. Just look up how complex their system were.
I'll tell ya wot, humans aint perfect, so any system they create aint gonna be perfect either. Lets have a system that considers the flaws of the free market and the flaws of a planned economy.
In co-ops, the sum of the parts is less than the total of the business.
No, I don't believe that "they have the exact same problems, and cause the exact same problems globally" is true, because that's saying "All methods of doing X are the exact same", that isn't true.
I don't think "mimicking" that is "radical change", nor is trying to seek out proper regulations.
What is your alternative? Super harsh, and restrictive regulations that only favour existing massive companies who will only be more powerful afterwards?
What do you mean?
None of those are work the mill owner does. All of those represent labor done by workers, paid by the mill owner's money. They are no different from the work done by millers. Obviously, a real-world scenario involves specialization of labor, but your example with mill-owner and miller is clearly a simplified model for discussion, so I didn't touch on it.
If the mill owner disappeared and his wealth went into the mill, there would be absolutely no change in the examples you listed. Work would need to be done on the mill, and the money would be paid from the mill.
Your justification is completely circular. The mill owner owns the mill. Why? Because the mill owner pays for the mill's construction and upkeep. How? Because he mill owner has money. How? Because the mill owner owns the mill.
"Running the mill" or "keeping it open" is not some magic arcane art only owners are capable of. It is, again, a form of labor that absolutely can be done by workers. If the mill owner disappeared, the mill is absolutely capable of running itself through worker's ownership. This has happened time and time again.
I thought surplus value took five minutes to disprove?
An enterprise that has X workers and each get an equal cut of the production regardless of how much they produce individually produces less wealth than a private owned counterpart with the same number of workers.
So, how do decisions get made? How are things organized? Is there a procedure for how to do things in place? Who developed that? Who enforces that?
I'm genuinely curious, do you guys believe running a business is "doing nothing"?
All Capitalist states have Capitalist problems and cause Capitalist consequences for the world. There is no evidence to suggest that isn't the case.
I said beyond mimicking that, which is apparently needed considering these better examples of Capitalism are still contributing significantly to climate change, still have raging wealth inequality and still exert their effects globally.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean the total of the business is less than the sum of its parts? I also want you to explain what you mean by that if so.
If the sum of the parts is less than the total of the business, that's a good thing? It means that by working together, workers have created something surplus.
Co-operative myths
And even if you were right, a more flat pay structure doesn't mean that it's going to produce less wealth.
So, lets cut the shit then.
Who are you referring to as "better examples" and how significant is their impact on climate change? You seem to be speaking from absolute authority here, so you must have numbers to support this?
And what is your alternative because unlike _axel implied, it seems you are advocating for the wholesale removal of capitalism and the replacement with another system, because only radical change will be enough in your eyes, as far as I can understand from your own stated arguments.
I know you're not suggesting "roll over and die", but this is essentially the future being offered by yourself as far as I can tell. Humanity will persist as a subsistence and agrarian society while a few super rich enjoy the pleasures of the "old world" without consequence. I guess that's better, right?
Do you have a single fact to back that up? Do you even have a definition of terms? Are they producing less goods or less profit? Less equity?
So the mill owner gets top-dollar for being what basically amounts to "ideas guy" while everyone else figuratively (and occassionally literally) breaks their backs to make the ideas happen. That sounds fair.
Really, the only thing I'm arguing against is the idea business owners add literally no value.
I work closely with the owners of the company i'm employed by, I see first hand the effort put in.
You're arguing against an easily-disprovable strawman point that isn't really being pushed, as opposed to the wide range of valid points are are being pushed in this thread.
No, that's not really what I'm saying.
Organizing and maintaining the consistent running of a business is not a "nothing job".
But can you honestly say it's more work than the people actually doing the work of the business required to get anything done at all?
Can you say, with honesty, that the guy "making decisions" is working harder than the guy carting around 50-80lbs. bags of grain? Than the guy who has to call through tight spaces to fix the shit when it breaks? Than the people who risk life and limb working around dangerous machinery?
You're associating a lot of things with owning a business that aren't intrinsically a part of it. Running a business and owning a business aren't inherently the same thing, even if they often go together.
Capitalists appropriate more value than they create.
That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying they ALSO carry a burden, and a value add. Is that really so hard to believe?
Hmm, interesting theory, can you expand upon this with some data?
Yes, businesses can be run at an arms length with little interaction from the owner.
Or they can be intimately involved and be a value to the company.
There is grey area here that seems to be ignored here. Why is that?
Because we were responding to a hypothetical in which the value of the entire business is being attributed to it's owner.
Yeah, Ragekipz, not mine. I'm not Ragekipz, and I don't share his views. Conflating us doesn't help this argument be any easier to have.
Okay?
But you were responding to our responses to Ragekipz, so????
Oh sorry thought this thread was more than just one discussion on one subject that only has the one nuance to it.
A cooperative would only be able to work like that in a capitalist system where it can pay it's members in money. Otherwise you'd just work for whatever the co-op produces. But also co-ops wouldn't be able to expand.
Owning a business and running a business are two separate roles. Owning a business involves getting money based on having a lot of money to put up at once. Running a business is labor that (should) give you money in exchange for your time and effort. At many businesses, owners are also operators, and therefore do labor they should be paid for. But in many cases they are paid far, far more than what is reasonable for this labor - because only a relatively small fraction of this money is pay for labor, and a relatively large fraction is a passive reward for having a lot of money to begin with. We are arguing that the latter is not justifiable.
This is not a personal insult against people you personally know.
You were responding to one discussion, it seems to logically follow that your response was in the context of that discussion and not just an unrelated train of thought.
Ragekipz proposed that the distribution of wealth in his hypothetical was proportional because the mill produces more wealth as a whole than the miller does individually, other people pointed out that it's a fallacy to attribute the production of the mill as a whole to the owner because they own the mill, you respond asking if people think that business owners generate no value, people respond that yes, on it's own owning a business does not generate value, as the hypothetical that this whole discussion was in response to inferred.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
