I've always been very supportive of this idea, worker co-ops, almost a fairer form of capitalism in a way because the worker is sharing the risk as well. |
|
Let's leave the totalitarian aspects of communism aside and focus on one basic idea: rather than make companies up of share-holders who employ the workers, why not make the workers the share-holders, with their profit dependent upon the success of the company? |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
I've always been very supportive of this idea, worker co-ops, almost a fairer form of capitalism in a way because the worker is sharing the risk as well. |
|
How would the shares be divided? |
|
Walmart does that, I think they like match any shares the employee buys to some limit. They also give bonuses to people at stores that do really well. It doesn't seem to be very effective however, since most people at wal-mart still don't seem to like their jobs very much, and as I understand it, things like that are meant to be motivators. |
|
Walmart also takes out life insurance poilicies on carefully selected employees that fit certain statistical data. If a walmart employee dies the store cashes in on their death. They make a tidy sum from their insurance policies. They don't care about their employees at all. |
|
Please click on the links below, more techniques under investigation to come soon...
Surely you're not this dumb. You mean to refer to Stalinism. Russia had true communism for all of about 2 months. Marx would have been one of the last people to advocate totalitarian anything. |
|
They don't do what I'm talking about. Giving stock options to employees is a different style than basing the ownership of a company around the workforce. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
I think that's an interesting idea, but there should absolutely be a wage that can sustain employees, since the success of the company is not entirely reliant on their own work. |
|
I know it isn't exactly the same, just setting up a reference to similar things that are actually done. If you own any stock, in a sense you do own part of the company. So any sort of stock sharing program does kind of do it. If the stocks are not options and just given then people might start wondering if its coming out of their pay and if they would get paid more if they turned the stocks down. |
|
I worked for an employee owned company, at first I thought it was lame because you have to work an x number of hours before you're given company stock, and it was something like, three years :b |
|
I am distinguishing between actual communism and the practice of communism/misconceptions of communism. Forgive me for not ignoring the commonly held (but misconstrued) definition of the philosophy. |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 01-26-2012 at 11:53 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
So basially, one could speak of it as a mixed economy, but rather than mixed capitalism/soialism, mixed capitalism/communism. It's a very interesting proposal, one that I think deserves further examination (though to actually achieve it would not be easy because the companies, especially the most significant ones, are currently owned by the high upper class, and I'm sure you've noticed they don't often like to share willingly). |
|
It would have to prove more successful, not just more fair. The concept would have to triumph on the open market. |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 01-28-2012 at 11:51 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
One of the potential problems of this idea that I can see is the loss of said workers' savings (for retirement etc) due to overinvestment in company shares. |
|
I like this idea, but I doubt that it could work anytime soon because workers don't have any means of making it happen. And the consumers simply don't give a fuck outside of the short term. This could happen if consumers decided to think about the long term effects of their purchases, but we need a cultural revolution for that to happen. |
|
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
It could not be a hybrid form, that much is clear. Giving employees stock options is not at all a viable means of this. Non-producers would have to be prohibited from owning stock in the company. I'm not saying the entire company would have to be run by the factory workers, but the factory workers would elect the managers and CEOs the same way the stock-holders do in this society. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Here's a video on anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, skip to 1:30 to get past the norwegian introduction |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 02-04-2012 at 02:20 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Bookmarks