Democracy is pretty good, Dictatorships themselves suck. That’s why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn’t be mini-dictatorships.
That’s why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn’t be mini-dictatorships.
You could do that. You could even distribute ownership, profits and risk among the workers. Literally nothing prevents someone from starting a business using that model. But then being paid a share of profits instead of a fixed salary is…probably not desirable for most people.
You’re making a few assumptions, which unfortunately are wrong.
There is downward pressure against worker co-operatives. Number 1, Capitalist firms are far more willing to brutally exploit Workers to maintain competitive advantage. Number 2, there is little infrastructure in place to assist with starting worker Co-operatives, unlike Capitalist firms.
You can absolutely pay a fixed salary in a worker co-operative, and place any excess into funds for expansion or to pay steady salaries when in economic troubles.
Worker Co-operatives are desirable for workers, that’s why worker co-operatives are far more stable, last longer, and have higher job satisfaction than Capitalist firms.
All of that to say that Worker co-operatives are only one form of Socialism, and they still knock the socks off of Capitalist owned and run firms, because it turns out, dictatorship is unnecessary and unpopular.
Dictatorships suck because there’s no accountability. A just dictator that can’t be bribed is still an unjust hierarchy that removes freedom and choice.
Democratically accountable Capitalism isn’t Capitalism. If production is democratically owned and controlled, it’s Socialism.
Why do you believe its impossible for Workers to democratically own and control the Means of Production? Worker Co-ops already exist as proof of possibility, same with Lemmy and other FOSS software.
You would not be the losing one in Socialism unless you’re a landlord or a business owner, in which case I’m sorry but humanity shouldn’t hold back progression for your personal sake.
No, you would not lose in Socialism unless you are a landlord or business owner. If you’re an engineer, doctor, lawyer, or other skilled worker that makes good money, you would be better off in Socialism. Socialism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production. Again, unless you’re a landlord or a business owner, you stand to gain. It isn’t the bottom 50% against the top 50%, but closer to the bottom 99% against the top 1%.
If you’re asking about leftist strategy, Unionization is a big one, see Syndicalism. Anarchists and Marxists, reformers and revolutionary Socialists, there are plenty of strategies for enacting meaningful change.
Revolution doesn’t happen in one place, reform neither. That’s why I suggested reading actual leftist theory, like Syndicalism, because its clear that you ignored that part of my comment to again pretend there’s no actual leftist strategy that had taken what you’ve said into account.
Democracy is pretty good, Dictatorships themselves suck. That’s why Democracy should be extended to the work place, and shouldn’t be mini-dictatorships.
You could do that. You could even distribute ownership, profits and risk among the workers. Literally nothing prevents someone from starting a business using that model. But then being paid a share of profits instead of a fixed salary is…probably not desirable for most people.
You’re making a few assumptions, which unfortunately are wrong.
There is downward pressure against worker co-operatives. Number 1, Capitalist firms are far more willing to brutally exploit Workers to maintain competitive advantage. Number 2, there is little infrastructure in place to assist with starting worker Co-operatives, unlike Capitalist firms.
You can absolutely pay a fixed salary in a worker co-operative, and place any excess into funds for expansion or to pay steady salaries when in economic troubles.
Worker Co-operatives are desirable for workers, that’s why worker co-operatives are far more stable, last longer, and have higher job satisfaction than Capitalist firms.
All of that to say that Worker co-operatives are only one form of Socialism, and they still knock the socks off of Capitalist owned and run firms, because it turns out, dictatorship is unnecessary and unpopular.
(deleted content)
Dictatorships suck because there’s no accountability. A just dictator that can’t be bribed is still an unjust hierarchy that removes freedom and choice.
Democratically accountable Capitalism isn’t Capitalism. If production is democratically owned and controlled, it’s Socialism.
deleted by creator
Why do you believe its impossible for Workers to democratically own and control the Means of Production? Worker Co-ops already exist as proof of possibility, same with Lemmy and other FOSS software.
You would not be the losing one in Socialism unless you’re a landlord or a business owner, in which case I’m sorry but humanity shouldn’t hold back progression for your personal sake.
deleted by creator
No, you would not lose in Socialism unless you are a landlord or business owner. If you’re an engineer, doctor, lawyer, or other skilled worker that makes good money, you would be better off in Socialism. Socialism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production. Again, unless you’re a landlord or a business owner, you stand to gain. It isn’t the bottom 50% against the top 50%, but closer to the bottom 99% against the top 1%.
If you’re asking about leftist strategy, Unionization is a big one, see Syndicalism. Anarchists and Marxists, reformers and revolutionary Socialists, there are plenty of strategies for enacting meaningful change.
deleted by creator
Revolution doesn’t happen in one place, reform neither. That’s why I suggested reading actual leftist theory, like Syndicalism, because its clear that you ignored that part of my comment to again pretend there’s no actual leftist strategy that had taken what you’ve said into account.
Touch grass, basically.