61–70 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
She's referring to the distribution and central planning aspects of socialism, which are secondary consequences of the philosophy. The discussion here is more relevant to the core tenet: worker ownership of the means of production.
I always thought it was strange that we live in a democracy but spend most of our time working in corporations, which are more like autocracies than anything remotely resembling that of a democracy.
Same reason we dont live in shared houses, i suppose
This trend bothers me. Employees are not shareholders, or if they are, they ought to do this in their capacity as shareholders. If they want to govern the company, they ought to buy in or move to management. Or, they can always move companies. This is always an option. Also, socialism is an awful idea. I can't believe people actually support it. I have a massive moral objection to its core tenets: what right have you…
Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. This whole idea that a company exists exclusively for the owners doesn’t make sense to me. There is a bigger picture to make a society work for all citizens. Warning about “ socialism “ also doesn’t make sense. We don’t have to choose between the way the US is at the moment and the Soviet Union or Venezuela. The…
At a restaurant, a chef is not allowed to have a bite of your meal because s/he is the one who prepared it. That meal is owned by you in its entirety because that is what you paid for.
If a group of employees want a say in the how a business is run, they are free to purchase ownership, whether directly or through shares.
This trend bothers me. Employees are not shareholders, or if they are, they ought to do this in their capacity as shareholders. If they want to govern the company, they ought to buy in or move to management. Or, they can always move companies. This is always an option. Also, socialism is an awful idea. I can't believe people actually support it. I have a massive moral objection to its core tenets: what right have you…
Your employer is able to bargain with you as one massive, collective organization with all its resources to bear. Why should you have to negotiate with them as a one atomic individual person, when you and your coworkers can instead get together and negotiate from a much stronger position?
This trend bothers me. Employees are not shareholders, or if they are, they ought to do this in their capacity as shareholders. If they want to govern the company, they ought to buy in or move to management. Or, they can always move companies. This is always an option. Also, socialism is an awful idea. I can't believe people actually support it. I have a massive moral objection to its core tenets: what right have you…
> what right have you to the fruits of my labor? Socialists ask the same thing of capitalists. There's no reason to elevate one particular (and historically rare) version of property rights over all others. And there's no particular reason economic organizations should or must be authoritarian dictatorships ruled by "shareholders" instead of workplace democracies.
The ethics of capitalism are based on the assumption that the business owner rightfully has final say on all of the property of the business, and that the workers are merely guests on the property, paid to do something with the property, collect a paycheck, and go home. They have no right to it.
But then you can start asking questions like, did the capitalist have rightful ownership of the money to buy the thing in the first place? If you go far back enough, you have things like conquest, homesteading land (which is inherently ambiguous), government grants of land (open to favoritism), etc. The whole foundation can be called into question.
Again I'm not ultimately convinced by it, but I think there's at least a discussion to be had. I feel like I've heard some convincing arguments but they're not coming to me now. But if you have the patience for it (I didn't even finish it), you might check out "What is Property" by Proudhon. He lays out a philosophy called Mutualism that sort of has socialist ethics, but is still somewhat market based in the end. He enumerates all of the assumptions he sees as underlying private property ownership and makes an interesting argument against them.
This trend bothers me. Employees are not shareholders, or if they are, they ought to do this in their capacity as shareholders. If they want to govern the company, they ought to buy in or move to management. Or, they can always move companies. This is always an option. Also, socialism is an awful idea. I can't believe people actually support it. I have a massive moral objection to its core tenets: what right have you…
Your employer is able to bargain with you as one massive, collective organization with all its resources to bear. Why should you have to negotiate with them as a one atomic individual person, when you and your coworkers can instead get together and negotiate from a much stronger position?
The thing I personally hate about unions is their political advocacy. The idea that a worker is stuck supporting a politician he might not agree with is one that makes me very uncomfortable.
Also, I think appleiigs summarized it better than I did, with the lack of individuality.
Socialism aside, the unionization of tech workers is extremely important. Failing this, they will be exploited at every damn job. Unions exist in local governments, so why not at private firms too. It's time to organize. A lot of CEOs and CTOs will hate this idea, of course, and will do anything to make you believe otherwise.
I'm 46 years old. I can't think of one example where I was exploited as a tech worker. I'm from a union town, grew up in a union family. I support unions. The UAW was very important to the country and the middle class. I'm just not sure where the need is in tech. I think it might hurt us, if anything. Tech workers are not fungible. We do have quite a bit of leverage. Your average factory floor worker is fungible and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's referring to the distribution and central planning aspects of socialism, which are secondary consequences of the philosophy. The discussion here is more relevant to the core tenet: worker ownership of the means of production.
If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.
Well, workers can buy equity in some company if they want. And shareholders' dividends get diluted.
For a tech worker, a union is largely about providing a worker-focused counterbalance to your companies decisions. Who buys the tech we make? What tech do we make? Do we allow ourselves to make tech that evades, impedes or outright destroys a person's rights?
I don't want tech employees to quit those facial recognition companies. I want a large group of employees with a seat at the table saying that their work should be used ethically. Those companies can always find employees who for a variety of reasons will do the work. My hope is that there is a group of employees there who want to do the work and for the right reasons. More power to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what right have you to the fruits of my labor? Socialists ask the same thing of capitalists. There's no reason to elevate one particular (and historically rare) version of property rights over all others. And there's no particular reason economic organizations should or must be authoritarian dictatorships ruled by "shareholders" instead of workplace democracies.
[flagged]