A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[Harry Tuttle]

What's to stop employees from voting for the manager who will gurantee all the profits get paid out in salaries? Where's the reinvestment?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

Originally posted by Odin
Keep the free market, but replace Corporations with Co-ops; the employees should control the capital. My idea is similar to the economic system in Kim Stanley Robinson's novel Blue Mars

Been tried.

[Odin]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
would be very inefficiant, having all those 'elections' for proposals.

Besides, Shareholder pressure could potentially be immense, they just rarley use it.

No, no, no. They elect the board of directors and the BoD makes the decisions, basicaly the company is a republic.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
What's to stop employees from voting for the manager who will gurantee all the profits get paid out in salaries? Where's the reinvestment?

Bad decisions = company goes bankrupt and the employees are looking for a new job.

[Kuciwalker]

Bad decisions = likely.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Odin
No, no, no. They elect the board of directors and the BoD makes the decisions, basicaly the company is a republic.

That's how non-profits are run. Its how my group is run.

It seems workable. I dunno how competitive this model would be with standard corporations, but if they were all this way... its possible.

[Harry Tuttle]

Well, it could be a sound policy, if only the employees, from the lower level to the top managers had enough skill to pick the best people to man the board.

Most companies have a pyramid structure with the lower level employees outnumbering the managers. I could very easily see the dock workers voting for the guy who will raise pensions and overtime rather than voting for the guy who will have the where with all to point the company in more profitable directions.

So basically, in this structure, there could very well be huge inefficiences that lead to stagnant growth.

I'm sorry, but giving everyone the vote in a corporation probably would not be very advantageous. I could see the larger population of the inexperienced and undereducated making poor decisions as to the future of the company. Then again, if the company is of the professional kind, (ie. a law firm, accounting firm) with smart, highly educated, and experienced employees then it might work.

Not to knock the blue collar workers, but the guys in the plant placing the sprockets on the cogs may not know enough about the business to make a decision from where they are.

Of course I've seen some very rich people who own stock make horrible decisions, because they're dumb.

If this system were to work the voters in the company would have to know what's best and what works and be able to place the right people in the right positions. Like making the guy who's been the dock worker, then salesman, and then sales manager, working his way up the ladder by his wits, the new Chairman of the Board.

A sense of the business really has to be ingrained in the voters for this to work out.

[Evil Knevil]

Bah, what does the proletariat need with miserable bourgeosis specialists? We, the workers, control the means of production.

Sl'avsa ot'echestvo n'ashe svob'odnoye,
Dr'oojbi nar'odov nady'ojni opl'ot

I'm drunk.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Well, it could be a sound policy, if only the employees, from the lower level to the top managers had enough skill to pick the best people to man the board.

Most companies have a pyramid structure with the lower level employees outnumbering the managers. I could very easily see the dock workers voting for the guy who will raise pensions and overtime rather than voting for the guy who will have the where with all to point the company in more profitable directions.

So basically, in this structure, there could very well be huge inefficiences that lead to stagnant growth.

I'm sorry, but giving everyone the vote in a corporation probably would not be very advantageous. I could see the larger population of the inexperienced and undereducated making poor decisions as to the future of the company. Then again, if the company is of the professional kind, (ie. a law firm, accounting firm) with smart, highly educated, and experienced employees then it might work.

Not to knock the blue collar workers, but the guys in the plant placing the sprockets on the cogs may not know enough about the business to make a decision from where they are.

Of course I've seen some very rich people who own stock make horrible decisions, because they're dumb.

If this system were to work the voters in the company would have to know what's best and what works and be able to place the right people in the right positions. Like making the guy who's been the dock worker, then salesman, and then sales manager, working his way up the ladder by his wits, the new Chairman of the Board.

A sense of the business really has to be ingrained in the voters for this to work out.

Sounds a lot like our system of government.

I could very easily see the dock workers voting for the guy who will raise pensions and overtime rather than voting for the guy who will have the where with all to point the company in more profitable directions.

DEFINITELY sounds like our system of government.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin


Money Power? If you are taling about investors, they won't be needed, My system uses instead a special bank loan for company startup.

Money has it's own power. The power to influence people. Money power will not allow an exploitive system to peacefully go to a nonexploitive system.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Money has it's own power. The power to influence people. Money power will not allow an exploitive system to peacefully go to a nonexploitive system.

You can't make a transition to a non-exploitive system overnight it will take a LOOOOOOOOONG time. Besides, I don't think Traditional Communism works unless technology is so advanced that nothing has monetary value because it is so easily available. This is an easy first step that I think most Americans will tolerate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
You can't make a transition to a non-exploitive system overnight it will take a LOOOOOOOOONG time.

How does it happen though. You can't just say that it will take a long time. Even if it takes a long time you still have to have a way that it will happen.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Odin


You can't make a transition to a non-exploitive system overnight it will take a LOOOOOOOOONG time. Besides, I don't think Traditional Communism works unless technology is so advanced that nothing has monetary value because it is so easily available. This is an easy first step that I think most Americans will tolerate.

From Kim Stanley Roberts to Iain M. Banks in 22 posts... economics through science fiction!

[Imran Siddiqui]

DEFINITELY sounds like our system of government.

That's the point isn't it? Our system is terribly inefficient, but we say, why not, we are dealing with social stuff. We generally want our economics to be efficient, however.

[Harry Tuttle]

Problem is, as with any democractic vote, the best people don't always get picked. We can only WISH everyone would vote for the absolute best person for the job.

When working at a company I'd rather rely on the people who have been chosen for the definite reason they know how things should run, if only for the express reason I want to keep getting paid. At least in a business world the idea of what is an absolute is a bit more defined than, say, with real life social issues.