Because @castoli1971 needs a reminder:
Propaganda comes from all sides
But mainly from the mainstream which has power and money as their primary goals.
Everybody pushing an agenda has power and money as their goal. Itās human nature.
Profit and power at any cost is not the same thing.
The problem isnāt the cost of profit and power, but profit and power. You can put limits on the costs, maybe some make sense as we still have to obey basic laws. You can put additional limits but it wonāt be enough so you go further and further until profit and power donāt exist. If we think of cost by using the term exploitation, then itās the only logical conclusion. Those who make the most profit and have the most power are also guilty of more exploitation. But as you limit that, you end up asking, āhow much exploitation is acceptable?ā The answer will inevitably be zero. If itās not OK for someone to have billions, then is it OK for them to have a billion? If a billion is not OK, then hundreds of millions? And it continues. The question is, can you have profit and power, in any amount, without exploitation? The answer is no. And if you think thatās a bad thing, you end up where I stated above, profit and power donāt exist. But, is exploitation a bad thing? It is something we all do and have done to us, unless you have nothing to offer, in which case you only exploit. In short, a world without exploitation would not exist. The best you can do is mitigate it to get the best out of it for yourself. As an example of what Iām saying: communism is supposed to save the working class from being exploited but it merely replaces one exploiter for another. Youāre still working. And if youāre working, someone is benefiting.
1 Like
Would this apply to a worker co-op? You know where the workers own the business, decide what to do with the profit and hire/fire management-if they have a management team.Do they typically generate profit by making others suffer, like our grotesque āhealthcareā system? So do they profit w/o regards to any consequences? Gotta love late-stage capitalism! Greed personified.
Are they all doing the same job? Obviously not. But letās say they were; are they all doing the same amount of work, with the same quality? We can assume that would be no. Some will produce more, some better, some both. The reality is that, in a business, regardless of the ownership model, some people are more valuable and/or more necessary than others. Some will be more expendable. Those who produce less get the same benefit as though who produce more. Those who produce lower quality can thank those who do better work for keeping the business in business. In effect, they exploit the better employees. They can fire management, but who can fire them?
Other members of the worker co-op.
If a member is found by other members to not be pulling their weight, they can be gotten rid of. And the amount of profits can be given out according to oneās work.
King of the Hill on co-ops:
That sounds like capitalism to me. But with extra steps.
Like what a ācapitalistā boss can do? So being a co-op doesnāt offer job security and your ability to feed your family is conditional.
That isnāt fair. If someone cannot do as much because they are disabled, or a woman (I joke), has a lower IQ, or whatever, itās not their fault. Why should they suffer?
Sounds like a more democratic work-life.
This can all be hashed out during the formation, when the by-laws are written.
Only this decision is made by the members, not a boss. More democratic. One person does not have that authority.
And having the worker/owners deciding what to do with the profits. Does that sound like a capitalist structure to you?
Is it less tyrannical though? A boss will consider the benefits to him/his business when evaluating an employee. Coworkers can have an entirely different agenda. They are more likely to allow personal feelings influence how they treat a coworker. I would prefer the impartiality of a boss over the whim of the mob.
Sounds like oppression to me. I guess you gotta serve somebody.
Yes. The fact that there are profits makes it capitalist.
1 Like
Iām sure your boss wasnāt the only one banging your ex at the pool, bro.
Do bosses not do this? Or was I just imagining it all that time when I held a traditional job?
Ahhh no doofusā¦ The members write out the by-laws together. If someone doesnāt agree they donāt have to join the worker co-op.
Again no doofusā¦ Would the members elect to give someone in the management team 300-400 times the amount of the average worker? The workers are in control not some D-bag CEO. Were there no profits in a socialist country? If so, would that make them capitalist? Canāt wait to see you dig yourself out of that one.
Another non-answer from a D-bag who has no idea what he is talking about. Typical.
If youāre making him money, no. You can find exceptions but work place drama and politics is commonplace between employees.
Who interprets and enforces these laws ?
If there were, the workers never saw them, which contradicts your entire thesis.
1 Like