Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto
PrintPage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Last
 Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto | |
|
davidasearles
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 225 |
 #71
Yebiga, just to be certain, you are agreeing that: management is something that in many instances workers with no ownership stake in an enterprise are hired to do? Thanks, Dave Searles Edited by davidasearles on Oct 28, 2009 - 1:22 PM |
|
dimitri
Assistant Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 23, 2008 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 293 |
#72
All kind of production have optimal forms of organization. Like in farming. If you are going to produce cheese you have to deicide where to start. YOu can start with rearing cattle or even producing forage for them. You can also buy milk from peasants or other farmers. You can employ your family or organize cooperative or a company or just hire a couple of people. All these things you decide all along you activity. You choose the more convenient form and change it if you find some better. You are optimizing your resources for achieving maximum effect. You are looking for how to control the process of production. If you buy for instance the milk from farmers, then all the responsibility for rearing cows and feeding and milking them lays on the farmers. The farmer tries to control this stage of production and he buys all the necessary things (a farm, cows, milking equipmemt...) because control means having in possession. If he sees that it is better to sell some bulls and buy instead a few additional cows then he does it. He can do it because he is owner! This is control. And the farmer optimizes his resources. If he needs a partner in business he finds it and works out conditions of partnership. If he finds such partnership inefficient he breaks it. Etc. You can divide the process of production into many stages. For instance the production of cars. Must you control all the stages? Of course no. It is impossible! So you find the optimal one. May be you find the most profitable for you to produce tires. Etc. In short, control means control (and responsibility) of the process of production (of some its stage). That means who must make decisions. If you try to bind resposibility and the right of making decisions you will come to property right! There is not other solution to the problem. May be my reasoning is not quite clear but you can do it yourself if you try to think along the suggested lines. |
|
yebiga
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 26, 2009 Location: Australia Total Topics: 14 Total Posts: 240 |
#73
Of course property rights are essential for any real change to occur at the employee level. Owners know this too well, which is why the boards of shareholders offer CEOs shares in the enterprise, knowing that ownership will motivate the CEO to increase returns. This is the current capitalist model, the shareholders and CxOs are owners and are rewarded the only group excluded is the employee. All we need do is extend this logic from the CxO to all employees whether p/t, casual or contractual they too are asked to give of their best for the organisation, so they too must be rewarded with shares and dividends. It is not ridiculous to imagine that all publicly list companies allocate 20-25% of all shares to the employees on a pro-rata basis and increasing with tenure and seniority. There was a trend towards this kind of arrangement amongst the dotcom high fliers during the 1990s. Of course once the Nasdaq bubble burst the old guard or the traditional 19th century empire struck back. And of course since than the looney Bush team took us all back to the dark ages and beyond. Nevertheless their are some real life examples which have worked and indeed still do. In light of the stupifying madness and alienation of consumer capitalism this discourse will inevitably make its way to center stage. But perhaps not this year |
|
dimitri
Assistant Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 23, 2008 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 293 |
#74
Still such approach is not correct. Ownership must reflect the order of responcibilities and decision making. Or configuration of ownership must correspond to optimal configuration of decision making in the process of producton (of anything). If participation of workers means intrusion into decision making process then it will reflect on efficiency etc. If not than what means your ownership besides getting dividends(just capitalist)? You always must keep in mind that such problems are permanntly solved by market! It and the institution of private property helps in finding optimal configurations. |
|
davidasearles
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 225 |
#75
We have established that management is work, that sometimes owners are managers, more often higher level managers are given stocks or stock options to give them some share in the enterprise. Very good. Also, that perhaps as an attempted reform capitalists might start to put stock into the compensation packages of all employees. So then when the workers are displaced by more efficient machinery, either at their own enterprise or some other, maybe they can attend the stock holders' meeting and perhaps get a free lunch when their unemployment benefits run out. Political entities to some degree (some to a very small degree or none) through legislation and custom attempt to effect lower limits on employee compensation; but this which is always a losing battle as more and more become employed in the face of increasing productivity. Displaced workers, never employed workers, and workers for whom one two and three family incomes don't come anywhere near being able to keep up with the basics of food housing transportation medical treatment education, clothing etc ought to have access to means of production and distribution so that they may produce for themselves the things that THEY DECIDE to work for and produce. That's not too much to ask, is it? Edited by davidasearles on Oct 29, 2009 - 5:08 AM |
|
yebiga
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 26, 2009 Location: Australia Total Topics: 14 Total Posts: 240 |
#76
well davidsearles, organisations, even reformed ones cannot be expected to fix all the problems inherent in society. Increased productivity and the subsequent loss of employment should not of itself be a problem but rather a source of celebration. So in coordination with changes in corporate ownership by inclusion of employees as owners and managers other changes must take place to strengthen the social safety. In short, a fully funded free universal health system and universal entitlement to unemployment payments adequate to provide for dignified existence. In many western countries a semblance of these is already in place. Dimitri, you use the word Market as if it were something independent. The market is what we collectively determine it is neither right or wrong but a reflection of a finite number of decisions establishing certain temporary trends and values. In a mature market there are no optimal relationships as there are too many vested slow moving interests and methods which are in place to delay the market to protect the status quo. The market cannot be some efficient machine if the players in the market are inefficient. In other words, you can build the best box, beta, but if you stuff up the marketing you end up broke because the market is first and foremost a reflection of our collective stupidity. |
|
unrealist42
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Location: City of Dreams Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 2603 |
#77
dimitri wrote: Still such approach is not correct. Ownership must reflect the order of responcibilities and decision making. Or configuration of ownership must correspond to optimal configuration of decision making in the process of producton (of anything). If participation of workers means intrusion into decision making process then it will reflect on efficiency etc. If not than what means your ownership besides getting dividends(just capitalist)? You always must keep in mind that such problems are permanntly solved by market! It and the institution of private property helps in finding optimal configurations. Optimal for who? Optimal for what ends? |
|
dimitri
Assistant Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 23, 2008 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 293 |
#78
You can not control market. Controlling market is communistic mith. Optimal for controlling of the process of production. For making decisions. See previous posts. |
|
davidasearles
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 225 |
#79
yebiga wrote: Increased productivity and the subsequent loss of employment should not of itself be a problem but rather a source of celebration. You almost had it but then blew it in the last clause. In and of itself, increased productivity and loss of employment can go wither way. Actual increased general productivity (if measured by product out per unit of labor time) coupled with loss of the need to do work that machines can do might be cause for celebration to a person if that person's livelihood is not in anyway tied to the price that he or she can obtain upon the sale of their labor power. However if the worker's share is the ratio of the worker's socially necessary time put in divided by the total socially necessary time of all labor within some closed system - then of course, as the effectiveness of labor increases that individual's lot increases per unit of labor time that he or she puts in, and would be a cause for celebration. Definitly. |
|
davidasearles
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 15, 2009 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 225 |
#80
dimitri wrote: You can not control market. Controlling market is communistic mith. Optimal for controlling of the process of production. For making decisions. See previous posts. But a free person and a free people can withdraw from a market. Workers and their friends may utilize their significant political clout to obtain relief from workers' economically required presence in the labor market. If workers do not sell their labor power on the market but receive back essentially in direct proportion and amount compared to the labor that they put in and what that labor produces within a system of collective worker control, that withholds labor power from the market that is the wages system. It's their right to do that, isn't it? Edited by davidasearles on Oct 29, 2009 - 2:12 PM |
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Last
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.