Exposure to socialism increases the proclivity to cheat?

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, two since workers could just start their own business and keep all the profit they generate for themselves. And not have the union dues stealing their profit either.

That's Anarchism, worker ownership and control. It's a better alternative to capitalism, not a remedy.

And many people are moving in this direction all over the planet. In the US, owners have always behaved violently and illegally towards increased worker control. The US will lag behind the world in this advancement. The US system is obsolete, on a downward spiral.

Those workers can create their own company now, nobody's going to stop them.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem here is that you are assuming capital has no value--you're looking only at the current labor, not the stored labor added to the business by the owner, nor the risk the owner takes.

That's not what capital is.

Except that's exactly what it is--stored labor.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Quit your job
2) Start your own business employing yourself

Bam! No employer and no union taking the fruits of your labor.

Now comes the mindblowing part: This is possible within the system we already got.

We don't need to ascend to the anarcho-unicorn world for you to do it.

Because everyone has the aptitude to run a business?

So instead of taking on those risks/rewards, people choose a different set of risks/rewards and get paid for it.

 

[ksen]

The problem here is that you are assuming capital has no value--you're looking only at the current labor, not the stored labor added to the business by the owner, nor the risk the owner takes.

That's not what capital is.

Except that's exactly what it is--stored labor.

I know it's stored labor. But you narrowed it down to the stored labor of only the labor and risk added by the owner. It's most definitely not that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Stealing people's stuff and distributing it to the "The collective" generally requires a brutal transitional period that often results in mass murder.

Capitalism is based on stealing stuff.

It isn't the government, but business owners. They steal from workers.

The way capitalism works is by paying workers less than the value of their work (the owners profit). Without all this massive theft the system would implode. And there is only one remedy for this theft, unionization. Which is why the owners have crushed the unions and get hysterical at the mention of them. They are the instrument to ease the theft. They are a damn nuisance.

Why is it capitalists only care about theft when it is the government?

If a Christian told us everybody who isn't tithing 10% to the Church is stealing from God, because our lives are on loan from God, would you believe him? Would you take it for granted that all the non-Church-supporting atheists believe him, and are just being dicks about it? Would you ask why atheists don't care about theft?

When you ask "Why is it capitalists only care about theft when it is the government?", you are not only taking for granted that your belief that profit is theft is correct, but you are also taking for granted that capitalists believe it's theft too -- that we all secretly know your religion is true and we're just being dicks about admitting it. In this respect, you're behaving exactly like the many Christians who insist they don't need to justify their faith-based premises with actual arguments, because those nasty atheists all already know there's a God, but they're mad at Him so they're being dicks about it. Christians who do that are dicks.

If you want people to believe profit is theft, you could start by offering a reason to think your noun phrase, "the value of their work", corresponds to some observable and measurable quantity the universe contains, in order that the hypothesis that employers pay less than this can be tested. If you don't do that, then you're no different from a Christian offering his unfalsifiable religious dogma as if it were an objection to atheism. Trouble is, you probably couldn't offer any reason. Back on FRDB you wrote:

"The only here you have to take on faith is that labor can create value."
​

Sorry, some of us here aren't all that into taking things on faith.

(Oh, and look around you. There are uncrushed unions all over the place in capitalist countries. But in countries where "the value of their work" believers abolished private profit, the rulers they put in power invariably crushed the unions.)

 

[dismal]

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Quit your job
2) Start your own business employing yourself

Bam! No employer and no union taking the fruits of your labor.

Now comes the mindblowing part: This is possible within the system we already got.

We don't need to ascend to the anarcho-unicorn world for you to do it.

Because everyone has the aptitude to run a business?

You're not allowed to assume there is any value created by the aptitude to run a business.

All value is in the worker's labor.

 

[untermensche]

That's Anarchism, worker ownership and control. It's a better alternative to capitalism, not a remedy.

And many people are moving in this direction all over the planet. In the US, owners have always behaved violently and illegally towards increased worker control. The US will lag behind the world in this advancement. The US system is obsolete, on a downward spiral.

Those workers can create their own company now, nobody's going to stop them.

Trying to create a separate system on top of an already existing system is slow. It only happens quickly with violent revolution.

But it is happening, because worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies.

 

[untermensche]

Because everyone has the aptitude to run a business?

You're not allowed to assume there is any value created by the aptitude to run a business.

All value is in the worker's labor.

Making decisions is a form of labor.

The question is are decisions made as top down dictates or is the power to make decisions democratic?

Do we support dictatorship or democracy? And do we call dictatorship a greater form of freedom than democracy?

 

[Emily Lake]

But it is happening, because worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies.

I've never quite understood this hypothesis. I understand that within the context of business alone, worker-ownership grants greater agency to the worker-owner. That's pretty straightforward. But life isn't about business alone. Life is about a lot more than just your job. And if everyone is a worker-owner all the time... there's a lot of lost efficiency. Everyone has to be a jack of all trades essentially, and specialization is set way back. Everyone has to be worker and manager and executive and decision-maker for everything. Everyone has to take risk for everything all the time. That's pretty wearing and it takes a lot of time.

I think you're underestimating how much people value someone else being responsible for taking risk and making decisions, and how much efficiency is gained by stratification of ownership. I think you're underestimating how much freedom is gained in non-business aspects when not everyone has to be an owner.

That isn't to say that there's nothing to fix - there are still problems, some people are still exploited, without question. But I don't think that making everyone be an owner and smashing capital is the only answer. I don't want to be an owner. I don't wan tthe risk and the uncertainty. I want to be an employee (preferably a highly paid one, mind you) and let someone else have the headache of being the owner.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Quit your job
2) Start your own business employing yourself

Bam! No employer and no union taking the fruits of your labor.

Now comes the mindblowing part: This is possible within the system we already got.

We don't need to ascend to the anarcho-unicorn world for you to do it.

Because everyone has the aptitude to run a business?

Very few people have an aptitude to run a business. However, socialists don't understand this. They want all "surplus labor" to go to the workers, and the companies will magically run themselves. They do not understand the difficulty and risk of owning a company.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is happening, because worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies.

I've never quite understood this hypothesis. I understand that within the context of business alone, worker-ownership grants greater agency to the worker-owner. That's pretty straightforward. But life isn't about business alone. Life is about a lot more than just your job. And if everyone is a worker-owner all the time... there's a lot of lost efficiency. Everyone has to be a jack of all trades essentially, and specialization is set way back. Everyone has to be worker and manager and executive and decision-maker for everything. Everyone has to take risk for everything all the time. That's pretty wearing and it takes a lot of time.

I think you're underestimating how much people value someone else being responsible for taking risk and making decisions, and how much efficiency is gained by stratification of ownership. I think you're underestimating how much freedom is gained in non-business aspects when not everyone has to be an owner.

That isn't to say that there's nothing to fix - there are still problems, some people are still exploited, without question. But I don't think that making everyone be an owner and smashing capital is the only answer. I don't want to be an owner. I don't wan tthe risk and the uncertainty. I want to be an employee (preferably a highly paid one, mind you) and let someone else have the headache of being the owner.

Well said. I've directly owned two separate companies. I have no desire to ever be an owner again. I enjoy my weekends and being able to sleep at night.

 

[dismal]

You're not allowed to assume there is any value created by the aptitude to run a business.

All value is in the worker's labor.

Making decisions is a form of labor.

Ok, so the laborer who goes into business for himself makes all the decisions and keeps all the value he creates with his decision-labor too.

I don't see the problem here.

 

[untermensche]

But it is happening, because worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies.

I've never quite understood this hypothesis. I understand that within the context of business alone, worker-ownership grants greater agency to the worker-owner. That's pretty straightforward. But life isn't about business alone. Life is about a lot more than just your job. And if everyone is a worker-owner all the time... there's a lot of lost efficiency. Everyone has to be a jack of all trades essentially, and specialization is set way back. Everyone has to be worker and manager and executive and decision-maker for everything. Everyone has to take risk for everything all the time. That's pretty wearing and it takes a lot of time.

I think you're underestimating how much people value someone else being responsible for taking risk and making decisions, and how much efficiency is gained by stratification of ownership. I think you're underestimating how much freedom is gained in non-business aspects when not everyone has to be an owner.

That isn't to say that there's nothing to fix - there are still problems, some people are still exploited, without question. But I don't think that making everyone be an owner and smashing capital is the only answer. I don't want to be an owner. I don't wan tthe risk and the uncertainty. I want to be an employee (preferably a highly paid one, mind you) and let someone else have the headache of being the owner.

You run the risk by working anywhere. You have no more risk by also having a measure of power to make decisions.

And having the power to make decisions doesn't mean lazy people that don't care about their lives and just like to float in the wind are forced to do anything but their job and cast votes. Nobody can force them to think about anything.

So don't worry, if you are one of those who don't want power over your working life, you will have it with no further burdens than you have now.

- - - Updated - - -

Making decisions is a form of labor.

Ok, so the laborer who goes into business for himself makes all the decisions and keeps all the value he creates with his decision-labor too.

I don't see the problem here.

So he makes money just by making decisions?

If so, and if nobody else is involved, then there is no problem.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I've never quite understood this hypothesis. I understand that within the context of business alone, worker-ownership grants greater agency to the worker-owner. That's pretty straightforward. But life isn't about business alone. Life is about a lot more than just your job. And if everyone is a worker-owner all the time... there's a lot of lost efficiency. Everyone has to be a jack of all trades essentially, and specialization is set way back. Everyone has to be worker and manager and executive and decision-maker for everything. Everyone has to take risk for everything all the time. That's pretty wearing and it takes a lot of time.

I think you're underestimating how much people value someone else being responsible for taking risk and making decisions, and how much efficiency is gained by stratification of ownership. I think you're underestimating how much freedom is gained in non-business aspects when not everyone has to be an owner.

That isn't to say that there's nothing to fix - there are still problems, some people are still exploited, without question. But I don't think that making everyone be an owner and smashing capital is the only answer. I don't want to be an owner. I don't wan tthe risk and the uncertainty. I want to be an employee (preferably a highly paid one, mind you) and let someone else have the headache of being the owner.

You run the risk by working anywhere. You have no more risk by also having a measure of power to make decisions.

And having the power to make decisions doesn't mean lazy people that don't care about their lives and just like to float in the wind are forced to do anything but their job and cast votes. Nobody can force them to think about anything.

So don't worry, if you are one of those who don't want power over your working life, you will have it with no further burdens than you have now.

You make the assumption that everyone wants more power. I just want to go to work, earn a fair wage for a strong company, then play on the weekends. If I have any extra money, I'll invest it passively into a well managed company. I want no part of being in a "collective" with questionable management and ownership making skills.

- - - Updated - - -

I've never quite understood this hypothesis. I understand that within the context of business alone, worker-ownership grants greater agency to the worker-owner. That's pretty straightforward. But life isn't about business alone. Life is about a lot more than just your job. And if everyone is a worker-owner all the time... there's a lot of lost efficiency. Everyone has to be a jack of all trades essentially, and specialization is set way back. Everyone has to be worker and manager and executive and decision-maker for everything. Everyone has to take risk for everything all the time. That's pretty wearing and it takes a lot of time.

I think you're underestimating how much people value someone else being responsible for taking risk and making decisions, and how much efficiency is gained by stratification of ownership. I think you're underestimating how much freedom is gained in non-business aspects when not everyone has to be an owner.

That isn't to say that there's nothing to fix - there are still problems, some people are still exploited, without question. But I don't think that making everyone be an owner and smashing capital is the only answer. I don't want to be an owner. I don't wan tthe risk and the uncertainty. I want to be an employee (preferably a highly paid one, mind you) and let someone else have the headache of being the owner.

You run the risk by working anywhere. You have no more risk by also having a measure of power to make decisions.

And having the power to make decisions doesn't mean lazy people that don't care about their lives and just like to float in the wind are forced to do anything but their job and cast votes. Nobody can force them to think about anything.

So don't worry, if you are one of those who don't want power over your working life, you will have it with no further burdens than you have now.

- - - Updated - - -

Making decisions is a form of labor.

Ok, so the laborer who goes into business for himself makes all the decisions and keeps all the value he creates with his decision-labor too.

I don't see the problem here.

So he makes money just by making decisions?

If so, and if nobody else is involved, then there is no problem.

So two people making a decision together is a problem?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem here is that you are assuming capital has no value--you're looking only at the current labor, not the stored labor added to the business by the owner, nor the risk the owner takes.

That's not what capital is.

Except that's exactly what it is--stored labor.

I know it's stored labor. But you narrowed it down to the stored labor of only the labor and risk added by the owner. It's most definitely not that.

The workers do not add stored labor.

- - - Updated - - -

Those workers can create their own company now, nobody's going to stop them.

Trying to create a separate system on top of an already existing system is slow. It only happens quickly with violent revolution.

But it is happening, because worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies.

It's not a separate system. Those workers that start their own company have joined the ranks of the capitalists.

As for your violent revolution--of course it happens much faster when you can just steal it.

 

[dismal]

Making decisions is a form of labor.

Ok, so the laborer who goes into business for himself makes all the decisions and keeps all the value he creates with his decision-labor too.

I don't see the problem here.

So he makes money just by making decisions?

If so, and if nobody else is involved, then there is no problem.

Who else needs to be involved?

You quit your job, you start your own business, you keep all the value of both your labor-labor and your decision-labor.

 

[untermensche]

Making decisions is a form of labor.

Ok, so the laborer who goes into business for himself makes all the decisions and keeps all the value he creates with his decision-labor too.

I don't see the problem here.

So he makes money just by making decisions?

If so, and if nobody else is involved, then there is no problem.

Who else needs to be involved?

You quit your job, you start your own business, you keep all the value of both your labor-labor and your decision-labor.

If you can make money by making decisions, with no other human labor involved, then of course you deserve all the money.

 

[laruan]

What part of socialism were the convicts exposed to prior to them being sentenced and then transported to the British colonies in 1780/ 1800s

 

[dismal]

Making decisions is a form of labor.

Ok, so the laborer who goes into business for himself makes all the decisions and keeps all the value he creates with his decision-labor too.

I don't see the problem here.

So he makes money just by making decisions?

If so, and if nobody else is involved, then there is no problem.

Who else needs to be involved?

You quit your job, you start your own business, you keep all the value of both your labor-labor and your decision-labor.

If you can make money by making decisions, with no other human labor involved, then of course you deserve all the money.

Not "if", my man, "when".

Why wouldn't you be able to make money? Your labor is the source of all the value.

 

[Emily Lake]

You run the risk by working anywhere. You have no more risk by also having a measure of power to make decisions.

What risk do you think you're talking about? I suspect that you and I are talking about different risks. Right now, as an employee, I have the risk that I might get fired. Sure, that's a risk... but generally speaking, as long as I do my job well and I'm not an asshole, it's a pretty low risk. Now I'm at a bit of an advantage, I know, because I'm highly skilled, and I'm not easily replaced - which gives me more agency than many people have, and increases my negotiating power with respect to my employer. I know that not everyone is in the same position that I'm in, and I'm privileged in that respect. But still - the risk of losing my job is the only risk I face. If my company does well, I get paid my salary; if the company does poorly, I still get paid my salary. My income is stable regardless of how well or poorly the company performs, until it reaches an extreme. That stability of income is worth a lot to me.

If I were an owner, then my income would wax and wane with the performance of the company. My income would be unstable. That's a risk that I don't want. I don't want that instability in my income. I have fixed expenses and I have fixed investments. I don't want to have to worry about not being able to pay my mortgage. That's something that causes me serious stress. And I make a pretty good living. I can't imagine that someone who earns less than I do would be at all willing to trade a stable income in return for more decision-making power. I don't think that the instability and uncertainty would be worth the power to them.

And having the power to make decisions doesn't mean lazy people that don't care about their lives and just like to float in the wind are forced to do anything but their job and cast votes. Nobody can force them to think about anything.

So don't worry, if you are one of those who don't want power over your working life, you will have it with no further burdens than you have now.

Being risk averse doesn't equate to being lazy. I'm far from lazy, and I care very much about my life. I find it rather offensive that you assume that because I don't seek power and ownership means I'm lazy and I don't care. That's not it at all. I'm just risk averse, and I don't want the uncertainty that comes with ownership.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A study:

From 1961 to 1989, the Berlin Wall divided one nation into two distinct political regimes. We exploited this natural experiment to investigate whether the socio-political context impacts individual honesty. Using an abstract die-rolling task, we found evidence that East Germans who were exposed to socialism cheat more than West Germans who were exposed to capitalism.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457000

Seems plausible. Other variables may be at play.

Poor people tend to cheat more often than rich people.

Was that ever really in dispute?

 

[Bomb#20]

Those workers can create their own company now, nobody's going to stop them.

Trying to create a separate system on top of an already existing system is slow. It only happens quickly with violent revolution.

But it is happening, because worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies.

Why would you imagine such a thing? How the heck does being outvoted by a majority of a workers' collective make you one iota freer than being outvoted by a proprietor or outvoted by a board of directors elected by a majority of the stockholders?

Freedom doesn't come from voting; freedom comes from having options. So even if it were true that worker ownership and control is a greater expression of freedom than top down private tyrannies, what's an even greater expression of freedom than either of them is having both options available -- an economy that has workers' co-ops AND top down private tyrannies. Which is what we have now.

Nobody's outlawing workers' co-ops. And some people prefer to work for private tyrannies. When you prohibit them from doing so, I take it you're going to tell them that by taking their preferred choice away you've made them freer, right? You'll be adding insult to injury. They'll hate you for it. Hmm, that will put you in a bind, won't it? Your whole rationale for reordering their lives by force is that you're trying to help workers, and workers hate you. What offensive story will you make up about them, that you'll need to tell yourself in order to let you still see yourself as the hero of your own narrative? Wait, I think I can guess this one. You'll probably tell yourself they're a bunch of "lazy people that don't care about their lives and just like to float in the wind".