A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Law firms aren't corporations. They're partnerships. They already operate like this.

If you mean like the co-ops that the original poster suggested, then you are sadly mistaken. law firms are hierarchies where your value is determined by the dollar value of your loyal clientele. usually all the non-lawyer employees feel like second class citizens and within the lawyers there are partners-- that have some say and non-partners that do not.

Basically the only power a non-partner has is to leave and find other employment

[Kuciwalker]

It's a coop in which some employees have more shares.

btw, I wasn't counting the secretaries, etc as "part" of the law firm.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Why? You can motivate someone to do something if you buy them lunch as long as there is no one else to give them more. You don't have to pay them huge amounts of money.

My question is how you prevent there being someone around to offer more. Even in a co-op setting, if I am a proven manager, or a geologist with a knack for finding lucrative mineral deposits or whatever . .. . there will be an incentive to pay me more if I can add value.

If someone isn't willing to pay me more, I will just iopen up my own shop and take all the profits of my labours for myself-- Since I will be a worker appropriating the efforts of my own labors, I'm sure no one will have a problem with it even if I make 10 million a year

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It tells us nothing about human beings, and thus is pointless to bring up in a discussion about which social systems would suit humans best.

No, because it tells us people are rational agents (not a bunch of insane nuts). Combined with the basic knowledge that few or none derive happiness from having LESS money, or less stuff money can buy (giving to charity is part of this), we understand that the general tendency of humans is to maximize their wealth (and then spend it on stuff).

No, it does not tell us that. It merely tells us that no matter what action a human takes, it is self-interested. Sticking your head in a tiger's mouth is self-interested because you wanted to do it. Suicide is self-interested. Even the actions of a psychotic schoizphrenic are self-interested simply because he chose to do them. Basically, you have replaced the definition of self-interest with the definition of choice and declared that because every human being must make a choice to act, he is therefore acting in his self-interest.

The reality is even father from your definition. Most humans do not act in their best interests, because they are either unware of their interests or have been confused by others into support that which harms them. Further, many people are constrained by time, energy, geography, economics, etc. and are physically incapable of acting in their self-interest.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's a coop in which some employees have more shares.

btw, I wasn't counting the secretaries, etc as "part" of the law firm.

That was obvious but don't they count in the co-op model-- I thought the original poster wanted one vote per employee LOL

In reality that would last as long as it took the 10 support staff to vote themselves a raise. Then the 5 lawyers would have to open a new firm

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it does not tell us that.

Yes it does. That's the definition of a rational agent.

Even the actions of a psychotic schoizphrenic are self-interested simply because he chose to do them. Basically, you have replaced the definition of self-interest with the definition of choice and declared that because every human being must make a choice to act, he is therefore acting in his self-interest.

Not quite. Insane (irrational) people do not act in their self-interest. A basic example would be "this action is in my self-interest, therefore I won't do it". Basic definition of illogic.

The reality is even father from your definition. Most humans do not act in their best interests, because they are either unware of their interests or have been confused by others into support that which harms them.

OK, make it "perceived" self-interest. I believe I even mentioned that earlier. It just gets annoying typing "perceived" before every instance of "self-interest".

Further, many people are constrained by time, energy, geography, economics, etc. and are physically incapable of acting in their self-interest.

Uh, no. Self-interest, or utility, is not some on-off switch, it's a range. Some actions are more in my self-interest than others. Thus, there will always be a greatest value (unless I am completely incapable of doing anything, in which case I'm not an agent anyway).

[Dinner]

The problem with capital is that it either has to be subsidized, or to be exploitative. I see no problem with a subsidized public bank, that offers very cheap loans to viable business models. I have much more problems with exploitative systems.

the problem with subsidies is they distort the market and lead to very pecular behavior by consumers. Here in Iraq the government subsidizes gasoline to make it more affordable to the average man. Thus gasoline is only about 20 cents a gallon, however, you can never find the gasoline because everyone is always buying as much as they can get their hands on and then reselling it at market value. If by chance you happen to find a station which still has gas, well, prepare for a loooooong line. Bread is also subsidized to the point that it's virtually free. Peasants have stopped bothering to harvest hay because they can get the almost free bread and then feed their livestock with it. Obviously neither of these are very efficent arrangements and both have resulted in rationing of the item in question because people have been so wasteful. But why should the people worry about efficency when it doesn't cost them anything? It does cost the government though because they are going bankrupt providing these subsidies.

I could also bring up federal housing loan subsidies and the subsequent creation of a housing bubble but I think you get the picture. Subsidies end up destorting the market and create wasteful consumption patterns not to meantion cost the state money it can ill afford.

[Flubber]

I'm, not into the theoretical model like others are, I'm into how things might work in practice

1. 1 employee-1 vote

This can work perhaps in certain cases and on certain issues but highlevel employeees will resent sharing power equally with the custodial staff-- There would likely be a major round of outsourcing of a lot of the lower level functions to avoid sharing decision making power. So the oil production co-op would put service contracts in place with the secretarial co-op and the janitorial co-op etc etc. The co-op model would not work for accounting, law or other professional firms ( and I am not certain it was proposed for those firms since they generally do not have share capital)

The larger question is who gets a say . .. Does a new employee get an equal say with the 20 year person? Do highly mobile people ( whose personal self interest would be to maximize salary and payouts now since they have abundant other opportunities) have the same say as people really tied to the business's long-term fortunes.


2. Capital-- Someone-- I think it was spiffor seemed to dismiss this problem with the idea that "banks" would provide the money. First of all I question where they get it if they have no investors themselves and are worker owned co-ops-- hmm how would that work ??

But leaving that aside and assuming the existing banking system existed, I doubt that there would be enough capital available for debt to replace investment. Plus many companies like say oil or mining exploration companies CAN'T use debt to finance much of what they do. The oil well costs a million but is worth nothing if it comes up dry. You might find investors but getting lent the money is unlikely. People will only give you the money on the idea of becoming an owner and sharing the upside. debt just doesn't work like that usually.

Also most of the higher-risk lenders come in the form of venture capitalists that require high rates of return and onerous terms to lend and will also require rights to take over control of the company if they don't like its direction. These lenders will be concerned with MAXIMIZING RETURN-- just like the old style shareholders were . . . hmmmm you've taken control of the business from shareholders and given it to a finance company-- good show!!?


3. Investors

Lots of people from the rich on down to Joe Schmo worker currently have investments in large numbers of companies. Where does this money go?? Is the idea that I can only lend this money for fixed rates and my only chance for greater returns is if the co-op I happend to work for makes them. Isn't this forcing me into the reverse of a diversification ?? -- making my future dependent on the success of the one business entity that happens to employ me.

Seriously though what does a rich person do with their wealth ( other than consumption)-- Or non rich folks-- The janitorial co-op has a surplus of funds due to hard work .. . . What can they do with this ?? They want to save for their retirements but where do they send the money---

Let me guess-- The State will provide it all right-- perhaps from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs ???

[Dinner]

The only available way to invest would be to aquire realestate or some other tangable item with limited supply.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The only available way to invest would be to aquire realestate.

All land will be publically owned.

[Dinner]

Horribly, stupid idea. Have you commies learned nothing over the last 90 years?

[chequita guevara]

Yes.

#1, don't let the counter-revolutionaries organize militarily to undermine your revolution.

#2, don't trust anyone named Stalin.

#3, democracy, even in civil war and foreign invasion, is preferable to an "emergancy" dictatorship.

#4, don't trust the United States.

#5, a mix of decentralization and centralization works better than either alone.

#6, two armed commisars for every bureaucrat, to guard against him, not for him.

#7, more democracy is always better.

#8, a mix of collective and private economies will result in people stealing from the collective.

[Dinner]

Where as collectively owned farms are doomed to produce next to nothing since no one wants to take responsibility for doing more work since the free loaders get equal shares. Aren't you even slightly curious why Tsarist Russia's wheat crop in 1913 was larger then every Soviet havest until the late 1960's? It wasn't just war damage because the total number of acres was much higher in the 60's then in the teens. It seems those greedy little collacks and peasant farmers actually made their farms more efficent by working harder. They worked harder because they got to keep all the profits. How do you provide equal motivation to a man who gets paid the same no matter if he works hard or just milks the system?

[Kuciwalker]

#7, more democracy is always better.

Even if it results in capitalism?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Where as collectively owned farms are doomed to produce next to nothing since no one wants to take responsibility for doing more work since the free loaders get equal shares.

That assumes the collective has no power to punish those who freeload. I don't make that assumption. If we're all going to suffer because Kuciwalker decides to freeload, we have an incentive to toss Kuci out of the collective, reduce his rations, give him extra chores, etc.

The reason the Soviet collectives did so poorly is because the workers had no authority. They were merely drones, who took orders. They had no ability to change things. That alienation was responsible for most of the problems in the USSR. That's what happens when you have a top-down system which is run by and for the bureaucrats. You see the same thing among low-level workers in the U.S. People do just enough work to get paid. Working harder only makes the owner richer.

Nicaraguan collectives, on the other hand, did quite well, when they weren't getting attacked by U.S. terrorists. People had a stake in their system, they had control over how things were done, if they wanted to make improvements they could.