Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 290
That dictionary is wrong; that is state capitalism.
From another legitimate dictionary:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The community as a whole isn't "workers." It isn't numerous co-ops deciding how they run. It is the community at large. And how do communities make decisions? Government.
Why are people arguing about socialism like its a thing( esp JA) ? It's a human construct . It describes the position of a thing as it exists relative to its total environment . It is an idea and as such it only has meaning when applied to the properties of unrelated objects (things) and the way they present in context . In other words saying this or that is socialism is as meaningless as saying 80 degrees is heat .Now you may argue that the dictionary describes it as this or that and that is true. It does ,but dictionaries are are imperfect tools and as such take for granted that the readers are aware of these basic philosophical tenants . Don't they teach Plato in school anymore ?
Haha, not a Facebook IQ test. They were always paper-based, and I took so many out of plain old curiosity (to see how much variation there is in the test).
The Merriam-Webster dictionary, in this case, is incorrect; I am merely pointing out a fact. I'm not too surprised, though, as it is an American dictionary.
The organization I work for has over 40,000 employees in about 60 countries. Let's assume, that it were to somehow become an employee-owned cooperative. With that assumption, I pose a few questions to you:
1. I believe you've stated in prior posts, that the employees of a co-op would just meet to make decisions. How does that scale to such a large organization? What are the actual logistics?
2. Our employee base is quite varied... MDs, JDs, PhDs, top 5 MBAs, etc., down to high school graduate/GED manufacturing folks. This information is just to illustrate the range of people we have--not judge any as providing more or less value to the organization. With that being said, how is pay appropriately determined? Are some employees not more qualified than others--not just in their specific roles but also in their ability to allocate the organization's resources?
3. What incentive does an individual have to excel? The reward that is realized, as result of the individual employee's increased effort becomes diluted, by the time it comes back to the individual--shifting the cost/benefit ratio.
4. How does such an organization deal with under-performing employees?
First of all, genuinely, thank you very much for some questions, and for furthering proper discussion.
1. As you well know, there are plenty of ways in 2015 to arrange meetings across countries (Skype meetings, etc.). Also, what I said/meant was: Every worker in the company has a say (i.e. a vote) in how the company is run. A democratic voting system (something I thought Americans are all about, haw) is fundamental in a co-op, with the different employees with ideas for change explaining them to the other employees through whatever means they all decide (email/meetings/whatever). The logistics of large co-ops are relatively simple, and have been replicated in large co-ops for some time, so the systems (while I won't admit to having experience working in them myself) are out there.
2. I will answer this question with an explanation of how Mondragon works in Spain. It is the sixth or seventh largest company in Spain, and it is also a co-op.
'At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in his/her cooperative. In reality, this ratio is smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, because most jobs are somewhat specialized, and are classified at higher wage levels. The wage ratio of a cooperative is decided periodically by its worker-owners through a democratic vote.
Compared to similar jobs at local industries, Mondragon managers' wages are considerably lower (as some companies pay their best-paid managers hundreds of times more than the lowest-paid employee of the company) and equivalent for middle management, technical and professional levels. Lower-wage levels are on average 13% higher than similar jobs at local businesses. Spain's progressive tax rate further reduces any disparity in pay.'
3. This question is a falsity/a myth. Capitalists believe, that, in a socialist economic system, workers will have no incentive, and will end up living off the state. First of all, that is obviously ludicrous to anyone with a working mind, and, secondly, there are many studies out there which prove this to be a myth/stereotype. People working in co-op (read reply to question two) tend to be paid better than workers in private companies of the same field. Obviously, managers, etc., get paid less, but that's the whole point. Workers have far more incentive to work in a co-op, as they have a genuine say in the company. Marx wrote about what everyone knows has already happened. People do work they hate just for the paycheck. Under socialism, this issue is either a lot less obvious or completely eradicated.
4. There would be far less underperforming employees (most would perform more effectively--read reply to question three). But, there is always a statistical chance there will be poor workers (like in any company); the workers as a whole decide how these workers are dealt with. Under capitalism, they are usually dealt a lot more harshly with, but, under socialism, these workers could be trained more effectively, or the workers could rally to help them become better workers. (I know some workers just plain suck.) This is because it is statistically more likely, to have more moral workers turning in a vote over the issue of what to do with slackers.
How do you know this, when we have never, ever had a totally socialist state? State capitalism most often works better than private capitalism.
First of all, I think you've written that wrongly, because surely you meant the wealth divide in those countries is higher (it isn't), and not that these countries are just richer. You guys have to get this notion out of your heads, that being a socialist country makes you automatically poorer. It's about wealth distribution; not handing money out for free. By its inherent nature, you'd actually become richer as a country, because of all the benefits of socialism and the disadvantages of capitalism.
First of all, his value is only that of his workers, as he wouldn't have a company without them. And secondly, the workers in a co-op can decide to pay people more than others; it's just a lot fairer, as, under capitalism, the board of directors tend to pay the CEOs all the money (for no logical reason). The workers do the brunt of the work in a company, so why shouldn't they decide how the pay hierarchy is structured. This is another myth you guys have to get out of your heads: Not everyone has to be paid the same under socialism; the wealth divide is just a lot fairer.
Again, I never said I was an anarchist (how many times do I have to say that?). I'm all for government!
I'll accept the compliment.
Ha. I didn't post it as total proof; like someone else said, IQ tests are not the be-all-and-end-all of intelligence tests.
Edited by JapanAlex01 - 7/28/15 at 6:09am
5. It will satisfy your lifelong curiosity.
4. Gay men make excellent lovers.
3. The humbling experience of being penetrated.
2. It will make a gay man sooooo happy!
1. You might like it.
Ed, take note.
And what is wrong with the current system? No one is forced to wprk for the man all could create those idealized coop that ypu talk about which in reality exploit there own workers.