Communism Pt 1: Common ownership of the means of production and wages.

[nerdvincent]

OK here I'll explain the notion of "ownership of the means of production" and put in contrast the difference in a capitalist and a communist society. It seems that there is many misconception about it.

First of all, "common ownership of the means of production" doesn't mean that your house, your lawnmower and your car are the **state's. It means that the means of production (industries...) are the **state's.

___________________________


In a capitalist society, industries are owned by the boss. It is his private property: he can sell it, outsource, he's free to give employees the wage he wants, and he receives money for owning the industry.
The passive action of owning the industry is renumerated.

Boss' salary = (Profit) - (Cost of production + wages of the employees)
Employee's salary = Wage * (hour of work)

Wages of the employees are just considered to be part of the cost of production. It is totally independent of the profit: may the compagny make 900% profit, their wages will be the same, only the boss' share will increase.

___________________________


In a communist society, the people owns the means of production. The compagny can't outsource at will, the compagny's the worker's:
Work is renumerated, not ownership

Employees' Salary = [Profit - (cost of production)] / (Number of workers)]

This equaton is similar to the boss': the workers are the owners, not only part or the cost of production.
Only I simplified the equation: I took the exemple of people working the same amount of hour for a job of equal difficulty. But we cannot deny that mining coal or practicing surgery is more exhausting than being a janitor or a receptionist. So we could modify the equation to obey to this moto:
Equal wage for equal work.

Isn't it logical enough? Isn't that the American Dream: earning money through work instead of ownership?

Myth: in a communist society, there is equal wages. Demystification: in a communist society, there is equal wage for equal work.

___________________________

**State: In a good communist society (not USSR), the state is here to protect those concepts. USSR was state capitalism: there was no common ownership of the means of production, only worker working for the state instead of working for bosses. My personnal concept of communism wants the state to be ruled by direct democracy.
Also, when I said compagny, it would be more logical to say state. I mean by that that the "profit" in my equation is the average profit of the state, not of a specific compagny.

[Shade]

Quote by: nerdvincent In a capitalist society... The passive action of owning the industry is renumerated. Boss' salary = (Profit) - (Cost of production + wages of the employees) Employee's salary = Wage * (hour of work) Wages of the employees are just considered to be part of the cost of production. It is totally independent of the profit: may the compagny make 900% profit, their wages will be the same, only the boss' share will increase.

Looks great for the owner when there is a 900% profit. Two questions:

(1) Can you please cite an example of a business that earns a 900% profit? Any one of the 7,000 stocks on the major US exchanges will do. You can look them up at: Yahoo! Finance. Please find one for me. Thanks.

(2) What happens when the business loses money? Do the workers take out a mortgage on their home so they can help the business make it through the tough times (possibly resulting in personal bankruptcy), like many business owners do? If so, can you please site for me any employee in American history who ever has? If they do not contribute their own money, why don't they?

In a communist society ... Work is renumerated, not ownership Employees' Salary = [Profit - (cost of production)] / (Number of workers)] This equaton is similar to the boss': the workers are the owners, not only part or the cost of production.

Okay, very good. Three questions:

(1) What happens if the business loses money? Do the workers work for free and put money into the business in hopes that things turn around, since they are also owners (not mere "workers")? If not, why not?

(2) If the business loses money, and the workers have to work for free until things turn around, how long do they also go without health insurance or vacation time since they have to sacrifice for the sake of the business?

(3) If the business loses money, how long does it take before the business must close its doors and the workers lose their jobs, as well as the money they put into the business that was losing money?

Thanks.

One more question: How did you arrive at the conclusion that business ownership is a "passive action?"

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Shade (1) Can you please cite an example of a business that earns a 900% profit? Any one of the 7,000 stocks on the major US exchanges will do. You can look them up at: Yahoo! Finance. Please find one for me. Thanks.

10,000% if you want to. Or 10%. It's called making an "hyperbole".

Quote by: Shade (2) What happens when the business loses money? Do the workers take out a mortgage on their home so they can help the business make it through the tough times (possibly resulting in personal bankruptcy), like many business owners do? If so, can you please site for me any employee in American history who ever has? If they do not contribute their own money, why don't they?

First, the business is called "state", so if a few bozzo managed to lose their house because they thought Wall Street was a casino, I can't really imagine a whole state having a bankrupty all at once. Second, it's called planified economy, and it means that there is no speculation, and thus if there is a financial crisis we'd be able to see it 10 years before it happens. Do you want me to make Communism Part 2 : Planified Economy?

Quote by: Shade (1) What happens if the business loses money? Do the workers work for free and put money into the business in hopes that things turn around, since they are also owners (not mere "workers")? If not, why not?.

Again, the state is a global business, so if a specific (yet indispensable) sector loses money, we can compensate with the others. What's important is the global health: if the global economy of the country falls, the standards of living falls, like in a capitalist society, only planified enconomy can avoid those situations.

Quote by: Shade (2) If the business loses money, and the workers have to work for free until things turn around, how long do they also go without health insurance or vacation time since they have to sacrifice for the sake of the business?

The business being the state, those argument can't really be applied here. Everybody will have to sacrifice a sunday per months for 2 months perhaps, instead of having a few thousand people working for free for 2 months like today.

Quote by: Shade (3) If the business loses money, how long does it take before the business must close its doors and the workers lose their jobs, as well as the money they put into the business that was losing money?.

If the state close its door, we enter the domain of anarchy, which isn't much my field. But if a sub-compagny of the state completly falls (which is almost impossible in a planified economy), there won't be domino effect in financial markets like today: global economy is much more endangered today with globalization.

Quote by: Shade One more question: How did you arrive at the conclusion that business ownership is a "passive action?"

Business ownership is a passive action. Administration, management, budjeting or anything accompagnying it is compatible with "equal wage for equal work".

[Shade]

Quote by: nerdvincent I can't really imagine a whole state having a bankrupty all at once.

Are you unaware that governments do go bankrupt?

...if there is a financial crisis we'd be able to see it 10 years before it happens.

Can you cite an example where any state has ever seen any financial crisis 10 years before it happened?

Do you want me to make Communism Part 2 : Planified Economy?

Sure, right after you solve the problems of Part 1.

Again, the state is a global business, so if a specific (yet indispensable) sector loses money, we can compensate with the others.

That does not answer the question.

Let's say there are 10,000 businesses in the economy (just to pick a number). What happens to 1 business that loses money? Do the workers, who are also the owners, contribute their own money to support the business in hopes things will turn around? If so, how? If not, why not -- and what happens to that business and the workers?

...if a sub-compagny of the state completly falls (which is almost impossible in a planified economy), there won't be domino effect in financial markets like today...

That's because you simply change the definition of "fail." No businesses failed in the Soviet Union, either. It's just that everybody was forced to "sacrifice" more and more and more, until everyone lived in poverty (except the fat cat bureaucrats of the Communist Party). How is your concept any different?

Also, according to your concept, there won't *be* any financial markets. So, where will the capital come from?

Business ownership is a passive action. Administration, management, budjeting or anything accompagnying it is compatible with "equal wage for equal work".

What about decision-making when it comes to what to invest in, whether to invest additional capital into a money-losing business, or raising capital to fund a new venture. These activities are management (or administration) of capital. Are these "passive," too?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Shade Are you unaware that governments do go bankrupt?

That's a matter of belief, ultimately. If they want, governments can keep operating while at a loss. The Soviet union did. The economy didn't do the Soviet regime in. It was Glasnost.

I do want to address nerdvincent's idea that "communism" must mean state control. I recommend reading alternative views on communism, especially Kropotkin. He was undeniably a great champion of libertarian (or anti-state) communism.

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

communism in any form is stealing and slavery period. You can sugar coat it all oyu want to but that's what it is. First of all the owners of companies especially small businesses work harder, longer hours than any of their employees, they also spend the most effort, energy, planning time and money to open and operate the business, the workers just hop in once all the starting work is done, then they make money as they work. An owner has to take all the loss for the ocmpany not the employees cause they can go somewhere else while the owner is stuck with the crisis. I don't believe that the other employees are doing equal work. There is nowhere on earth that consistently makes 900% profit, that's a load of crap. If the ocmpany makes more money it has more costs, more overhead more employee wages to pay etc. Just because a company brings in X amount of dollars does not mean they have made that much profit. First of all you have not included the operation costs, employees wages, and the fact that at least 50% of what they bring in, in most normal businesses is rembursment for the money they paid to sell their services and products.Example it costs the owner 50,000 to buy products for his store, he sold it all at normal retail price which is x's 2, he brought in 100,000 from the sales of the goods and an additional $7,000 in sales tax for the state and federal government. He has 20 full time employees to run his store he pays them all $10.00/hour so his employee wages cost $34,667 at leats per month, and his overhead in additon is $10,000. So he actually only profits $5,333. That's it. who made out better here? In fcat at this rate this company is bankrupt, it cannot afford it's employees at that number or pay rate, and it may have to out of necessesity triple, or qudruple the price of it's products in order to not go bankrupt. So why don't you try doing some real math on businesses before you decide communism is the answer. I got news for you I am not baout to go to work on sunday and I'm not about to do volunteer work if my family doesn't profit from it. ESpecially when the reason for most of these bankruptcies are from bad decisions made by the owners. The state would then be responsible. I am curious if lal the employees in you scenario are owners are they in charge of board meetings too, advertising meetings, financial growth meetings, costs and sales meetings, do they set their own pay , do they pick their own benefits, do they decide their work schedual, do they all work overtime to take care of critical business issues? My guess is no they don't and that means they aren't owners just like Hi-Vee's employees are not owners of the company, and since they aren't doing any of those things they are not doing equal work. Equal work is not always or only defined as more physical labor, intelligence, time spent, what production you get from the work is also a part of who works harder. Plus I could easily say as a woman it is harder for me to lift then a man twice my size in the same job, so since it's easier for him to lift should he recieve less pay?

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle communism in any form is stealing and slavery period. You can sugar coat it all oyu want to but that's what it is.

Well, capitalism is stealing as well. It is also exploitation and servitude. As far as I'm concerned, any sale under this economy is an action by an agent of state. Legal coercion is everywhere now. It's the foundation of private property and resource monopolization. It doesn't entirely matter whether you refer to this coercion as "capitalist" or "communist." It's like arguing over the brand of boot on one's neck. No, we should instead remove whatever foot is holding us down.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Well, capitalism is stealing as well. It is also exploitation and servitude. As far as I'm concerned, any sale under this economy is an action by an agent of state. Legal coercion is everywhere now. It's the foundation of private property and resource monopolization. It doesn't entirely matter whether you refer to this coercion as "capitalist" or "communist." It's like arguing over the brand of boot on one's neck. No, we should instead remove whatever foot is holding us down. Grandpa h.

Capitalism is not stealing. Stealing exists under capitalism of course, but it is not enshrined as part of the ideological orthodoxy as it is under communism.

Capitalism makes everyone the owner of himself and his labour. Each person is free under capitalism to trade that labour for something they want ie money, commodities, a sense of well being or any of a multitude of reasons why a person may engage in work. That which they recieve from working is their own and no one elses; to keep, spend or distribute as they see fit.

In our modern "capitalist" countries, we live away from this model to varying degrees, to an extent some of us would find it difficult to call it capitalism any longer. It may be more truthful to call them mixed economies.

Under communism however, you do not own your own body or your labour. You own a percentage of your body and labour, and the same of everyone elses. Of course, unless you live on a tiny commune, that percentage is infitessimally small. So small, you pretty much do not own your own body. Everyone else does. This makes you their slave, and you their masters. Such a situation breeds resentment over why you should work harder than the next guy, and it all spirals down into a great dung heap.

The best humans, those of the best minds and characters, will not easily live as slaves. They will either resist communist and socialist practices and society, or they will give in, and become twisted by it.

Communism is reality just turns the political bureaucracy into a new aristocracy, where no one can rise without gaining political favour. Capitalism does not do this. Yes, you can rise with political favour. But you can also rise by hard work, sacrifice and common sense.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Shade Are you unaware that governments do go bankrupt?

Because of speculations in markets backed by an humongous budjet deficit. Panified economy is the antithesis of speculation.

Quote by: Shade Can you cite an example where any state has ever seen any financial crisis 10 years before it happened?

Can you cite me any state with the communist system I described?

Quote by: Shade Let's say there are 10,000 businesses in the economy (just to pick a number). What happens to 1 business that loses money? Do the workers, who are also the owners, contribute their own money to support the business in hopes things will turn around? If so, how? If not, why not -- and what happens to that business and the workers?

Those 10,000 industries being the same business under the same authority, we can use the surplus of the other "businesses" to compensate the deficit of this very business. The goal isn't growt like in a capitalist society where it is indispensable or the whole thing falls, but to provide goods and a good standard of living to the people. If people were starving in the 30's, it wasn't because there wasn't food, it was because capital acted as a brick wall between the people and food.

Quote by: Shade That's because you simply change the definition of "fail." No businesses failed in the Soviet Union, either. It's just that everybody was forced to "sacrifice" more and more and more, until everyone lived in poverty (except the fat cat bureaucrats of the Communist Party). How is your concept any different?

By that there wouldn't be no fat crat bureaucrats because it will be a direct democracy, and by that there will be no US challenging us in a cold war where we will have to engage a space race and build nuclear weapons instead of producing foods and goods like a good ol' country. I doubt that a direct democracy would permit to do such useless things.

Quote by: Shade Also, according to your concept, there won't *be* any financial markets. So, where will the capital come from?

Cotisation from everybody through taxes according to the plan. Workers/owners take their responsabilities and participate, or they do not and leave the system. This last part will be explained in another thread.

Quote by: Shade What about decision-making when it comes to what to invest in, whether to invest additional capital into a money-losing business, or raising capital to fund a new venture. These activities are management (or administration) of capital. Are these "passive," too?

Administration and choice are made by qualified people like today, only they are considered like workers instead of half-gods with golden parachutes if things turns bad. Their power has limits though: no outsourcing, no firing employees for the sake of profit...

[nerdvincent]

First of all, try to let your post breath a little. It's extremely hard to read when it's all in the same paragraph.

Quote by: ironeagle First of all the owners of companies especially small businesses work harder, longer hours than any of their employees, they also spend the most effort, energy, planning time and money to open and operate the business, the workers just hop in once all the starting work is done, then they make money as they work.

First, if the owner of small compagnies may work very hard, and I ain't denying it, the owner of bigger compagny may receive up to 1,000 time more for much less work. But if the owner of the small compagny does work hard, the system I described will ensure that he'll get the money he deserves, and same for the big bosses. You won't win the argument by saying that communism doesn't renumerate work, because that's what it is all about. It would protect the hard working and honest people who are the owner of small compagnies, and it would do justice the the owner of big compagnies screwing their employees.

Quote by: ironeagle There is nowhere on earth that consistently makes 900% profit, that's a load of crap. If the company makes more money it has more costs, more overhead more employee wages to pay etc. Just because a company brings in X amount of dollars does not mean they have made that much profit. First of all you have not included the operation costs, employees wages, and the fact that at least 50% of what they bring in, in most normal businesses is rembursment for the money they paid to sell their services and products.

First, I think I made clear that 900% was an exemple like "10,000 compagnies" used by Shade. And yes, I included operation cost and employees wage in my equation. And what you don't say it that once the cost of the production and all are rembursed, the money won't go to the worker but to the owner, and in a communist society the worker is the owner. So yeah, it is the answer.

Quote by: ironeagle I got news for you I am not baout to go to work on sunday and I'm not about to do volunteer work if my family doesn't profit from it. ESpecially when the reason for most of these bankruptcies are from bad decisions made by the owners.

Communism as I conceive it will be a volountary phenomeon, as I'll explain in the next part. Be free to stay where you are.

Quote by: ironeagle Equal work is not always or only defined as more physical labor, intelligence, time spent, what production you get from the work is also a part of who works harder. Plus I could easily say as a woman it is harder for me to lift then a man twice my size in the same job, so since it's easier for him to lift should he recieve less pay?

No, he should receive equal pay since it's equal work.
But how do you explain this:
Male and female income disparity in the United States

This phenomeon would be annihilated in a communist system.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: G. Adams [...]but it is not enshrined as part of the ideological orthodoxy as it is under communism.

Tell me where there is in-built stealing in the system I described in my post. I'll be happy to correct it.

Quote by: G. Adams Capitalism makes everyone the owner of himself and his labour.

LMAO! Half of my first post explains how in a communist society every workers are owners while today only self-titled bosses owns the means of production. If you're talking of your lawnmower, your house and your car, they're yours thank you very much. You work, you've got the pay renumerating your work, and you're free to use it at will.

Quote by: G. Adams That which they recieve from working is their own and no one elses; to keep, spend or distribute as they see fit.

Same in a communist society, only this money will by earned by work and not by ownership of the means of production as explained in extenso below. Did you even read my post?

Quote by: G. Adams Under communism however, you do not own your own body or your labour. You own a percentage of your body and labour, and the same of everyone elses. Of course, unless you live on a tiny commune, that percentage is infitessimally small. So small, you pretty much do not own your own body. Everyone else does. This makes you their slave, and you their masters. Such a situation breeds resentment over why you should work harder than the next guy, and it all spirals down into a great dung heap.

Tiny commune... you're anticipating my next thread.
But for the working harder thing, equal wage for equal work is protecting your concept.

[SoylentGreen]

[QUOTEgrandpa]I do want to address nerdvincent's idea that "communism" must mean state control.[/QUOTE]

I agree with granpa, As well modern communism is manifesting itself with each new factory that is owned by the workers instead of a capitalist.

G. Adams Capitalism is not stealing.

Really?? How do you know, can you show me an example of a capitalist country that has eliminated theft?

Actually, could you even show me an example of a capitalist country?

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Capitalism is not stealing. Stealing exists under capitalism of course, but it is not enshrined as part of the ideological orthodoxy as it is under communism.

Capitalism is no more honest than state communism.

Grandpa h.

[Shade]

Quote by: grandpa The economy didn't do the Soviet regime in. It was Glasnost.

Why do you say that?

The USSR went bankrupt.

[Shade]

nerdvincent,

(1) You did not answer my first question: Are you unaware that governments do go bankrupt?

(2) Nor did you answer my second question: Can you cite an example of any government that has ever seen a financial crisis coming 10 years before it happened?

(3) So, if there are 10,000 businesses in an economy like you describe, and 1 loses money, do the *workers* contribute funds to bail out that business? Yes or no?

(4) You didn't really answer my last question: Are people who administer or manage capital also engaged in a "passive" activity or not?

Cotisation from everybody through taxes according to the plan.

What does that mean?

Workers/owners take their responsabilities and participate, or they do not and leave the system.

Is the system you describe a completely voluntary one?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: nerdvincent Tell me where there is in-built stealing in the system I described in my post. I'll be happy to correct it. LMAO! Half of my first post explains how in a communist society every workers are owners while today only self-titled bosses owns the means of production. If you're talking of your lawnmower, your house and your car, they're yours thank you very much. You work, you've got the pay renumerating your work, and you're free to use it at will. Same in a communist society, only this money will by earned by work and not by ownership of the means of production as explained in extenso below. Did you even read my post? Tiny commune... you're anticipating my next thread. But for the working harder thing, equal wage for equal work is protecting your concept.

How is communism ideologically justified stealing? Tell me, how is your utopia funded? There's your stealing. In more detail - I am a free human being, and I own my body and labour. I, being free, can sell my labour for a price I agree upon. I may not like the price, but if working at that price is of more value than not doing so, I am liable to accept the price. However, under communism, I am not free to sell my labour at a price I agree with. I am forced to accept what other people, beyond me and the person I am trading with, deem acceptable. The profit of the exchange and my fellow trader is stolen from me in the name of "the people".

You may say, where have I said such a situation will occur? Let me ask you if the following situation would be acceptable or not in your communist society.

I am a talented musician (in this example anyway :) ). I am well liked, and people wish to listen to me. I let people listen to me live in my home for $5 each, for an hour of music. Per day, I get 1000 people through my door, thus I bring in $5000 a day, almost pure profit considering my overheads are heating the room and buying new strings for my guitar. I play 200 days a year, bringing me in $1million a year.

Now the average person in this theoretical society earns $10, 000.

Are you going to take any money off me, to redistribute to the other members of this society?

If no, great, you are not stealing. If yes, you are. Because I have commited no crime, as every person came to listen to my music of their own free will. They believed that listening to an hour of my, no doubt, heavy black metal was worth $5. You have no right to take off a slice of my legitimately earned money to redistribute it to others, however poor or needy. It is mine, and to take any would be theft.

So tell me, in your society are you going to take any of my money to redistribute it?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: nerdvincent LMAO! Half of my first post explains how in a communist society every workers are owners while today only self-titled bosses owns the means of production. If you're talking of your lawnmower, your house and your car, they're yours thank you very much. You work, you've got the pay renumerating your work, and you're free to use it at will. Same in a communist society, only this money will by earned by work and not by ownership of the means of production as explained in extenso below. Did you even read my post? Tiny commune... you're anticipating my next thread. But for the working harder thing, equal wage for equal work is protecting your concept.

I said that every individual under capitalism owned themselves and their labour, not "the means of production". That means that the free individual under capitalism is free to sell, or not to sell, his labour under capitalism. AKA, to work or not to work, to work for boss A or boss B, to start his own company, providing he has the means. To attempt a business and succeed or fail by his own ability, rather than his ability to beg others for handouts.

Under communism, this is not the case. All "workers" own the means of production, but communism makes each and every worker a part of that means of production. Therefore, every worker owns every other worker. Each worker becomes the slave of his fellow worker.

I do not own "the means of production", I own only my own labour (and a little cash which accrues a tiny amount of interest). I am your definition of a "worker". I do earn money, I earn it by selling the good I possess, labour. The business I work for pays me an amount that it is worthwhile hiring me for, and an amount it is worthwhile me working for. This is my value in doing the particular job, considering the potential risk I pose (I can leave my job easily, I am inexperienced etc). However, they have seen how good I am, and I am preparing to leave. They have offered me more, but I will not take it because I am leaving on grounds of principle (it's a bank that has taken british tax payer money to keep it afloat).

So you see, I as a worker am earning under capitalism. I am not a slave, as I am free to leave. Would a doctor under communism be able to leave his job or his community (scale up to country if neccesary) if he was "needed" by that community?

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams I said that every individual under capitalism owned themselves and their labour, not "the means of production". That means that the free individual under capitalism is free to sell, or not to sell, his labour under capitalism.

In other words, people are free to be worked or free to starve, while capitalists legally dominate resources and capital, using their higher position to exploit the underprvileged. That's not "owning yourself," it's called being swindled. Participation in societal institutions, and therefore decisions over resources, should be common to all involved and affected. This includes the means of production and distrubution. We should not be dumb machines who carry out orders or get tossed out into the street.

There can be no "free individual" under strict capitalism, for the individual is entirely under the yoke of capital. That's why chattel slavery was the ultimate expression of capitalism.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

Quote by: ironeagle communism in any form is stealing and slavery period.

Do you include state-owned enterprises in your view of communism? Examples would include the BBC, Pemex, Statoil, Amtrak, United States Postal Service, British Steel, Irish Sugar, etc.

[nerdvincent]

To my opponents:
I'm having exams next week, so it may take to time to answer every objections. See thou soon!