Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[Dan74]

Too complex for you, eh? Invalid even? It is pretty dated. You're the one offering the proposition of economic nirvana. If you don't know what you're talking about say so. I know little about what you claim to know a lot about. I suspect, though, that you look to positives and have no interest in the problems of Marxist ideas of human nature. You certainly don't stick your neck out for any to compare your ideas for even a faint resemblance to Marxist thought.

Except I've read it and explained it over and over. I don't have to sit here and entertain your points. This stuff has been debated for decades and you still bring up the same old points. Read it, it'll do ya good.

[minorwork]

Except I've read it and explained it over and over. I don't have to sit here and entertain your points. This stuff has been debated for decades and you still bring up the same old points. Read it, it'll do ya good.

Perhaps you should re-read it.

[Dan74]

Perhaps you should re-read it.

This is coming from a guy that's never read it? How sad.

[minorwork]

This is coming from a guy that's never read it? How sad.

And you refuse to proffer any indication of your scholarship. What bluff.

[BobbyO]

Ah this is an interesting point. The point you raise is valid to an extent, however the stronger team members of mine also had that equal say. As a team leader I was always willing to take feedback and would use a mutually agreeable goal to get the weaker members of my team up to scratch. My boundaries were very clear, the team understood and respected that.

In fact a story that relates to your point. One member of my team was constantly under performing. I didn't even have to take action as the other members of my team got together and called the weaker member out on their actions.

The other members had as equal a say as the weaker member and their collective work ethic raised the standard of the weaker member.

"Mutually agreeable goal" as defined by whom? You and your team? Or you and your supervisor?

All i was saying is that even in your example, your position is not based upon the consent of the members of your team. That gives a person a certain flexibility and ability to lead people toward a goal that doesn't exist if the members can simply vote you out if they don't like what you are doing, or even the methods you employ in doing so.

[Dodds]

"Mutually agreeable goal" as defined by whom? You and your team? Or you and your supervisor?

Could be me and my team or me and an individual. And it is designed by both parties making such goals. A real life example could be you offer to cook so long as your partner does the washing up.

All i was saying is that even in your example, your position is not based upon the consent of the members of your team.

Actually this is false. People used to ask to be on my team.

That gives a person a certain flexibility and ability to lead people toward a goal that doesn't exist if the members can simply vote you out if they don't like what you are doing, or even the methods you employ in doing so.

This would only happen in situations of shit management.

[BobbyO]

Actually this is false. People used to ask to be on my team.

yes- and I have had similar situations. But again- my continued employment was not based upon the vote of the team- but by the judgement of my supervisors. In a socialist system that is not the case (at least so it says) and that does change how work is, well managed, coordinated ect.

This would only happen in situations of shit management.

Or conflicting opinions as to goals, personality conflicts, sh*t team members, ect ect. all of which may be beyond the control of the manager, or which spells up a failure of the manager to solve such problems.

[Dodds]

yes- and I have had similar situations. But again- my continued employment was not based upon the vote of the team- but by the judgement of my supervisors. In a socialist system that is not the case (at least so it says) and that does change how work is, well managed, coordinated ect.

Can you tell me what socialist system you are talking about? This does not sound like socialism.

Also I feel like this is the flaw in a capitalist system, in a socialist system when you don't like your boss(by which I mean how they hamper your ability to do your job) you replace them, in a capitalist system you cannot do this.

Or conflicting opinions as to goals, personality conflicts, sh*t team members, ect ect. all of which may be beyond the control of the manager, or which spells up a failure of the manager to solve such problems.

And a failure of the team to stop such problems. When you do the manager bit right you increase production and people are happier in their job. When you dictate as a manager that is when things go wrong and people do not want to work with or for you.

[BobbyO]

Can you tell me what socialist system you are talking about? This does not sound like socialism.

A situation where the workers vote for their "bosses"?

Also I feel like this is the flaw in a capitalist system, in a socialist system when you don't like your boss(by which I mean how they hamper your ability to do your job) you replace them, in a capitalist system you cannot do this.

But just because a worker says a manager is hampering his ability to do his job, in no way makes this true. As a manager, you have to be prepared to refute this assertion.
In a capitalist system, you have the authority and responsibility to overrule those assertions, if in your opinion, it is indeed false.
But, in a socialist system, that worker has equal say in his claims as you do in yours, more actually if he can find others who share that view. Its is not a strength of socialism, but a weakness. That which you were able to do in a capitalist system, is not so readily available to you in the socialist one.

And a failure of the team to stop such problems. When you do the manager bit right you increase production and people are happier in their job.

yep.

When you dictate as a manager that is when things go wrong and people do not want to work with or for you.

Not always so; even in your example, team members were "dictating" to others, which seemed to have a desired effect. That's one way you managed the situation.

[Dodds]

A situation where the workers vote for their "bosses"?

which sounds nothing like what you said.

But just because a worker says a manager is hampering his ability to do his job, in no way makes this true. As a manager, you have to be prepared to refute this assertion.

And if you do your job right as a manager the worker(s) will not say that.

In a capitalist system, you have the authority and responsibility to overrule those assertions, if in your opinion, it is indeed false.

Opinions are easily changed when the facts change.

But, in a socialist system, that worker has equal say in his claims as you do in yours, more actually if he can find others who share that view. Its is not a strength of socialism, but a weakness.

Democracy is a weakness??

That which you were able to do in a capitalist system, is not so readily available to you in the socialist one.

It is if you do it right. That way we get good bosses.

Not always so; even in your example, team members were "dictating" to others, which seemed to have a desired effect. That's one way you managed the situation.

A mutually agreeable goal in other words.

[BobbyO]

And if you do your job right as a manager the worker(s) will not say that.

Perhaps.

Opinions are easily changed when the facts change.

Since when?

Democracy is a weakness??

Dodds- is your job dependent upon the workers whom you manage? And by that I don't mean that its a negative reflection upon you if the workers whom you manage do not work up to par, for whatever reason. I mean do they have the authority to terminate your employment? Or is that left with your supervisor?

A mutually agreeable goal in other words.

"dictating" in others.

[RjBig]

I can't speak for you because I'm not a Marxist, but my own view is that so much comes down to self defense. If the Chinese took over your country, you might not be so happy about it and try to ward them off. Well, for me the same principle applies very broadly, even to the gap between capital and labor.

When people don't have enough and are at risk of losing even more, they're put in a position where they may have to rebel to survive. This happens quite naturally when the powers that be get carried away (which happens fairly often, given what such power entails).

At best, capitalists can look at this phenomenon and say, "This has none of the identifying features of a free market." Technically they would be correct, but it means they're defending a theory that's not too much in use.

Grandpa h.

Grandpa that last paragraph describes our situation now quite accurately....There is just very little about our Markets that even resembles the idea of Free Markets that the Capitalist claim to be supporting...It just does not exist anymore...

OUR Entire system is based on Fiat Currencies using Fractional Banking...so we are using Monopoly Money which has no Value...

Our Capitalist system has enslaved the poor by allowing property rights and therefore cutting off access to the necessities of life. But cutting off our access to the necessities of life...ie food water shelter...the poor are subject to forced labor...Work or starve...This puts people into desperate situations where they will do anything to make enough to eat...so this makes employee have no real value...and as long as there are more people than jobs people will be desperate and willing to do anything quite cheaply...This allows company to do all sorts of horrible things that people would not normally do if they were not desperate...You see this forced labor makes dictates that Capitalism be a lie....Capitalism is Based on Contract law...A basic tenet of contract law is that a contract is only valid if Both parties enter into the contract of their own free will with being under duress, without being forced...Obviously if you are forced to work to eat you are entering the employment contract under duresses...Therefore the entire system is based on a contract that is null and void...since most enter into it under duress...A basic income guarantee corrects this issue by giving everyone a basic income that eliminates the forced nature of work...Capitalism will still exist...you can still own a Porsche and Buy a McMansion but our system will now have a floor...This makes the employer value the Employee because the employee now must want to Work with you...and that will change the entire dynamic of Worker/employer...There will be no need for Unions...and then the Free market will adjust the wages to actually reflect the free market of labor...Currently wages do not reflect the free market because the poor are forced to labor...Once they work by choice the are therefore acting on their own free will the wages will readjust to reflect a truly "Free" Market...