Individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among executive leadership

[untermensche]

You ignore the Anarchists and their democratic system.

Just as the immorality of dictatorship in government is replaced by democracy the same thing must happen in the workplace before people can really be called free.

It didn't survive and it stayed together because of bond of fighting. How would it handle people who didn't want to work? How did it handle the people who wanted to strt their own business and give better benefits than people who were in the "union"?

It was destroyed by force.

And it worked.

Without dictatorship in the workplace.

And without dictatorship another kind of society flourished. One you have never seen. But one seen by George Orwell.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. But you have incredible weird reasoning so nothing will change it. We've said numerous times, go start your own democratically run company. Have you yet?

You won't address arguments, that is all.

If Nike sells a pair of shoes for $150 and it pays the labor that made those shoes $2, most likely less, then theft has occurred.

It is clear to some and impossible for some to see.

The problem here is that you can't see costs other than those of the worker who put them together.

What about the materials?

What about the management?

What about the shipping?

What about the marketing?

What about the sales? (Hint: Retail markup is generally in the ballpark of 50% of the sale price.)

What about the anti-counterfeiting efforts?

What about the tools?

- - - Updated - - -

It costs more than the $2 to pay for the shoes. They aren't making $148 each show. They are paying other labor too, plus materials, plus shipping etc. If a company isn't turning a profit, are workers stealing from a company?

This is diversion. Once again.

I know you want to equate human labor with a piece of leather.

Yes materials and tools cost money.

All paid for by stealing from labor.

Thus in your word the workers make nothing because they have no tools to work with nor materials to work on--because those are only obtained by theft you wish to stop.

In your world everyone dies. Why don't you just skip the intermediate steps and commit suicide?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And there are people who think any type of sexual activity is rape. Consensual sex isn't rape they same way consensual trade between people isn't theft.

The worker consents only by necessity. That is a form of coercion.

There is no other reasonable choice than to consent to some dictatorship or another for many people.

This is why when capitalists control the government they try to degrade social services as much as possible.

They want helpless slaves, not people with options.

Simple counter-example:

Back when my wife was working for a doctor she also had some of her own clients. She most certainly did have a choice--and decided that being a piecework employee under an MD that treated her well was a good thing. (And when that guy died and she couldn't find someone else like him she went entirely on her own.)

I also much prefer being an employee--I'm far better at writing code than selling myself. Going it on your own means finding clients--something I am not good at.

- - - Updated - - -

And absolutely nothing has stopped you from starting a democratic controlled company, but you haven't done it. Why not?

More diversion.

I will give you a clue.

This does not justify dictatorship.

That's not an answer at all.

 

[DBT]

Nike Gross Profit Margin (Quarterly):
45.55% for Nov. 30, 2015

 

[untermensche]

This is diversion. Once again.

I know you want to equate human labor with a piece of leather.

Yes materials and tools cost money.

All paid for by stealing from labor.

Thus in your word the workers make nothing because they have no tools to work with nor materials to work on--because those are only obtained by theft you wish to stop.

In your world everyone dies. Why don't you just skip the intermediate steps and commit suicide?

Just because you can't imagine how workers can get tools and materials without having to submit to an immoral dictatorship does not in any way demonstrate they couldn't.

Please show me how a group of workers could not secure a loan for materials and tools from democratically controlled lending institutions designed to finance new enterprises.

I'm not interested in your worthless promises that it is impossible.

Demonstrate it. For the first time in your life demonstrate something.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Thus in your word the workers make nothing because they have no tools to work with nor materials to work on--because those are only obtained by theft you wish to stop.

In your world everyone dies. Why don't you just skip the intermediate steps and commit suicide?

Just because you can't imagine how workers can get tools and materials without having to submit to an immoral dictatorship does not in any way demonstrate they couldn't.

Please show me how a group of workers could not secure a loan for materials and tools from democratically controlled lending institutions designed to finance new enterprises.

I'm not interested in your worthless promises that it is impossible.

Demonstrate it. For the first time in your life demonstrate something.

They can. I have stated the issues that they will have, growth, downsizing, changing, etc. Steady state they are okay with.

You not starting a democratically controlled company shows the difficulty in it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thus in your word the workers make nothing because they have no tools to work with nor materials to work on--because those are only obtained by theft you wish to stop.

In your world everyone dies. Why don't you just skip the intermediate steps and commit suicide?

Just because you can't imagine how workers can get tools and materials without having to submit to an immoral dictatorship does not in any way demonstrate they couldn't.

Please show me how a group of workers could not secure a loan for materials and tools from democratically controlled lending institutions designed to finance new enterprises.

I'm not interested in your worthless promises that it is impossible.

Demonstrate it. For the first time in your life demonstrate something.

I'll admit I have a hard time imagining the impossible. It's got to come from somewhere and you have left noplace for it to come from.

 

[laughing dog]

I'll admit I have a hard time imagining the impossible.

You are way too modest. Your OPs and posts are filled with your imaginings of the impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Just because you can't imagine how workers can get tools and materials without having to submit to an immoral dictatorship does not in any way demonstrate they couldn't.

Please show me how a group of workers could not secure a loan for materials and tools from democratically controlled lending institutions designed to finance new enterprises.

I'm not interested in your worthless promises that it is impossible.

Demonstrate it. For the first time in your life demonstrate something.

I'll admit I have a hard time imagining the impossible. It's got to come from somewhere and you have left noplace for it to come from.

Yes, worker oriented banks.

Impossible.

They could never exist. The laws of physics prevents it.

 

[Jayjay]

I'll admit I have a hard time imagining the impossible. It's got to come from somewhere and you have left noplace for it to come from.

Yes, worker oriented banks.

Impossible.

They could never exist. The laws of physics prevents it.

Of course they could exist. But is there any reason to think that worker-owned banks would operate any differently with respect to their customers than non-worker-owned ones?

Oh, but you said worker oriented. Which probably in your lexicon means something completely different.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, worker oriented banks.

Impossible.

They could never exist. The laws of physics prevents it.

Of course they could exist. But is there any reason to think that worker-owned banks would operate any differently with respect to their customers than non-worker-owned ones?

Oh, but you said worker oriented. Which probably in your lexicon means something completely different.

The system does away with top down dictatorships.

Financing for new enterprises shifts from lending to individuals to lending to workers involved in an enterprise.

It's a completely different system.

Not just a word.

And again, it violates no laws of the universe.

And it is more than a different system. A different system creates different people. As George Orwell noticed.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll admit I have a hard time imagining the impossible. It's got to come from somewhere and you have left noplace for it to come from.

Yes, worker oriented banks.

Impossible.

They could never exist. The laws of physics prevents it.

1) That's only talking about the tools, not the materials.

2) Why in the world would they lend when there's no hope of repayment??

 

[untermensche]

Yes, worker oriented banks.

Impossible.

They could never exist. The laws of physics prevents it.

1) That's only talking about the tools, not the materials.

2) Why in the world would they lend when there's no hope of repayment??

One insane absurdity after another.

What a waste of time.

How do banks that lend to businesses get paid back in any system?

I'll give you a hint it isn't by a miracle.

 

[coloradoatheist]

1) That's only talking about the tools, not the materials.

2) Why in the world would they lend when there's no hope of repayment??

One insane absurdity after another.

What a waste of time.

How do banks that lend to businesses get paid back in any system?

I'll give you a hint it isn't by a miracle.

They get paid back from the profits which you have called theft.

 

[Playball40]

You didn't include when he went back just month's later and the system had fallen apart - right back into a hierarchical system. He was saddened at how quickly things deteriorated in chaos - there was no real leadership, just a 'feeling' and inevitably someone decided they wanted more.

It didn't survive and it stayed together because of bond of fighting. How would it handle people who didn't want to work? How did it handle the people who wanted to strt their own business and give better benefits than people who were in the "union"?

It was destroyed by force.

And it worked.

Without dictatorship in the workplace.

And without dictatorship another kind of society flourished. One you have never seen. But one seen by George Orwell.

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."

 

[untermensche]

One insane absurdity after another.

What a waste of time.

How do banks that lend to businesses get paid back in any system?

I'll give you a hint it isn't by a miracle.

They get paid back from the profits which you have called theft.

I called profits taken from workers by dictators theft.

When the size of profits and what is done with profits is decided in a democratic fashion that is not theft.

Just as when a dictator makes a law it is not a legitimate law. His power is not legitimate. There is nothing to legitimize it.

But when laws are made in a democratic manner they have legitimacy.

 

[untermensche]

You didn't include when he went back just month's later and the system had fallen apart - right back into a hierarchical system. He was saddened at how quickly things deteriorated in chaos - there was no real leadership, just a 'feeling' and inevitably someone decided they wanted more.

So you say, without source.

But if you know the history the Anarchists were pretty much destroyed by the Communists (Stalinists really) from within before the fascists with the help of the Germans, Italians, US and England won the war.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They get paid back from the profits which you have called theft.

I called profits taken from workers by dictators theft.

When the size of profits and what is done with profits is decided in a democratic fashion that is not theft.

Just as when a dictator makes a law it is not a legitimate law. His power is not legitimate. There is nothing to legitimize it.

But when laws are made in a democratic manner they have legitimacy.

The whole problem with a dictator is that you don't get to choose your dictator where that is not the case when it involves a self-chosen leader.

 

[untermensche]

I called profits taken from workers by dictators theft.

When the size of profits and what is done with profits is decided in a democratic fashion that is not theft.

Just as when a dictator makes a law it is not a legitimate law. His power is not legitimate. There is nothing to legitimize it.

But when laws are made in a democratic manner they have legitimacy.

The whole problem with a dictator is that you don't get to choose your dictator where that is not the case when it involves a self-chosen leader.

Being forced to take a certain kind of job in a certain kind of institution in the desperation of the rat race is not voting for a dictator.

It is many times a coerced decision made in the absence of a rational alternative.

There were many who for centuries loudly defended the dictatorship of monarchy.

But none of these defenders ever once justified dictatorship.

It is not a form of human interaction that can be justified.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You didn't include when he went back just month's later and the system had fallen apart - right back into a hierarchical system. He was saddened at how quickly things deteriorated in chaos - there was no real leadership, just a 'feeling' and inevitably someone decided they wanted more.

So you say, without source.

But if you know the history the Anarchists were pretty much destroyed by the Communists (Stalinists really) from within before the fascists with the help of the Germans, Italians, US and England won the war.

the irony of one workers paradise trying to destroy another workers paradise.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole problem with a dictator is that you don't get to choose your dictator where that is not the case when it involves a self-chosen leader.

Being forced to take a certain kind of job in a certain kind of institution in the desperation of the rat race is not voting for a dictator.

It is many times a coerced decision made in the absence of a rational alternative.

There were many who for centuries loudly defended the dictatorship of monarchy.

But none of these defenders ever once justified dictatorship.

It is not a form of human interaction that can be justified.

But it's not, because under a dictator you have no freedom, where you still have perfect freedom to go where you want know. Your system would destroy freedom.