Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On being the right size (1928)

marxists.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#51

Post by gnarbarian »

bjourne wrote: post #50
bojan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs and would rarely choose to pollute their own communities. In Communist Yugoslavia we had something like that. There were companies that were managed by their employees, each having one vote. A proposal that would obtain a majority of votes would get to be implemented. But it turned out that people would rather vote to use surpluses…

That's not very different from having a company with an incompetent board of directors. In fact, it is exactly the same thing except in the Yugoslavia scenario every worker in the company would have a seat at the board. While it is true that some people could screw up their workplace for short term gains, is it more or less likely than an "investor" milking the company for profits and running the business to the grou…

Who do you think is more likely to be incompetent, the board of directors of McDonald's or 10 employees chosen at random throughout the entire organization?

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#53

Post by V-2 »

bjourne wrote: post #45
bcoates wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs This implies they would be making the wrong decisions then, no? There needs to be some mechanism to decide who does what, or otherwise some goods and services will be produced in proportions well exceeding any possible demand. > The main idea is to make the enterprises benefit those who do the actual work and also make them accoun…

The idea is to retain the good qualities of capitalism which is self-optimization and market-based decision making. The bootmaker and the nailmakers would be autonomous agents making decisions in their best interests. The bootmakers can buy nails from whoever they want, but if the market then rejects their boots because of shoddy nails, they will have to adapt. Also worth pointing out that in a specialized economy, m…

"The bootmakers likely need nails specifically designed for their boots so buying generic ones from China isn't an option. Instead they need to source a local supplier and tell them how the nails for their boots models need to be made"

That's beautifully conceived, but you conveniently ruled out an option that sly bootmakers could get their hands on a Chinese dictionary and instruct these cheap Chinese suppliers (rather than the supplier next door) on what type of nails exactly they would like to have made for them ;)

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#54

Post by philwelch »

guelo wrote: post #24
gnarbarian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Automotive unions as an example. Their demands contributed in many ways to the US auto companies nearly going bankrupt and requiring state bailouts. Moving manufacturing to cheaper places can have a bad local effect in pockets that depend on it, but there is a ne…

It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what American auto workers do.

German unions also own stock and sit on the board of their employers, which is the real difference. American unions are much more parasitic as they have zero vested interest in the hosts they infest.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#55

Post by philwelch »

tehwalrus wrote: post #34
jl6 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>someone other than the people doing the work get to decide how the work is done and how to spend the surplus of value that work generates. Who do you mean here? Foreman, manager, executive, owner... these are all real jobs that do real work.

Out of interest, what do you think an 'owner' does in an enterprise with an executive branch, apart from supplying passive capital at the start?

Hires and fires the executives. Doing that wrong is catastrophic.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#56

Post by V-2 »

bojan wrote: post #46
breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs and would rarely choose to pollute their own communities. In Communist Yugoslavia we had something like that. There were companies that were managed by their employees, each having one vote. A proposal that would obtain a majority of votes would get to be implemented. But it turned out that people would rather vote to use surpluses…

Well, nothing stops anyone from starting a company organized that way. It's called a cooperative.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#57

Post by tdmule »

gnarbarian wrote: post #44
ljf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but maybe we don't need what we are currently buying, but are because the costs are hidden. How much of the stuff we own do we really need?

I don't understand why necessity even comes into this. We don't need a lot of things. We don't need freedom of speech. We don't need more than 2 pairs of underwear or a car either. I don't need more than 2500 calories but I like being able to go eat a big juicy $50 steak sometimes. In the US it's actually illegal to go faster than 65 mph (75 in some awesome places) so why should we make cars that go faster than that…

It seems as though this tangent has quickly turned into a discussion about consumerism (and indirectly its relation to capitalism).

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#58

Post by V-2 »

dnautics wrote: post #48
breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

"Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationalized or socialized..." One of the earliest (and now largely forgotten) criticisms of Marx came from the American philosopher Benjamin Tucker, who facilely forsaw the rise of the communist implementations as an…

Here's another lesser known theoretician who predicted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abramowski I'm not sure if his works are available online, esp. in English. Quotation on some message board: http://goo.gl/91lAu7

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#59

Post by k__ »

gnarbarian wrote: post #25
guelo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you mention Germany there at the end since it undermines your whole argument. German auto workers are all unionized and they earn double what American auto workers do.

It doesn't undermine my argument. I said they compete on quality. Unions can be just as tyrannical as a monopoly. If German companies didn't produce better cars than cheaper countries there would be no reason to buy them and very few people would. Added to my above comment: "For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of t…

The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands.

The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying.

You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too.

If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to conduct business.

Post reply on HN