Except that isn’t happening. The world is becomming more capitalist, not less. People just seem to like the irrational idea of being able to work where they want, buy and sell what they want for the best price they can negotiate and keep what they own. Weird.
Sounds marvelous! When do you expect that will happen?
I’m more of a hardware guy, although I have written my share of code. Just let me know what you need, citizen!
Happy Thanksgiving, all.
Not at all more capitalist. it is more monopolistic and more oligarchic.
The concept of capitalism is fine. We have made fits and starts to get it. We have had to trust bust and vigilantly fight against the greed and power of those who want unlimited power in the hands of the plutocrats. This time we lost.
All we have is the illusion of choice. it is very limited and getting worse all the time. Competition has died. You shop for convenience. Prices vary very little. Service has disappeared. Guarantees are worthless.
You guys don’t even remember when if an item was bad, the store just took it back. Now you have to prepare for a battle when you buy something screwed up.We have lead paint in kids toys ,poisonous dog and cat food and particle board in new homes that emits poison gas. it is made someplace cheap ,without regulation and environmental protection or labor laws. That is not elevating us. It makes a lot of money for those at the top while making countries we are fundamentally are enemies of, stronger and wealthier. It is all screwed up.
Yeah, I remember the days when the town had basically one supermarket, but you could get meat of every variety and price point. Frozen chicken, organic chicken, cage free chicken, dressed up chicken, marinated chicken kebabs, rotisery chicken, freshly made chicken soup… the list goes on and on.
Oh, and running shoes. We used to have 15 different brands from cheap to expensive.
Computers, too. You can only get one kind of very expensive computer now.
Oh, did I mention cars? You used to be able to get gas powered, diesel, hybrid or electric.
And Best Buy? Remember the days when everything came with a 30-day guarantee? Remember?
Those days are gone, I tells ya. Gone!! They’re so gone, they’re gonzo.
Corporations can act against societal interests, but the economy and economic progress are not zero sum games. It is very often the case that corporate gains are gains for society, in the form of creation of new wealth (job creation, increased income for existing job holders et cetera.)
Capitalism produces winners and losers. That doesn’t mean we’re all fighting over one pot of gold that never changes in size, that line of thinking has been roundly rejected by all academia for probably 150 years or more at this point.
I would also point out, something that may shock your liberal sensibilities, is that the United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates on the planet. Higher than most “socialist utopias” in Euroland.
I see what you did there. Would that be statutory tax rates or effective tax rates? Because no corporation pays the top marginal tax rate as a percentage of their profits.
“…higher than most socialist utopias…”? How many such hollowed out victims of a failed system are there? And of that number, what constitutes “most”?
**A **process for participating in equity exists. One that I consider a whitewash since it is still an undemocratic process of power-sharing and where money is still the most important determinant of power.
I do not accept the argument that since one is free to start a co-op that is a sufficient method of democratic engagement, and that it is improper somehow to suggest that all corporations should be democratic. To me, it is the same as saying no one is oppressed in dictatorships or autocracies, since they could always move to a democratic country, or even start their own country.
If this were true, there would be no need for the special funds and banks that have been created for co-operatives. They were created specifically because of the greater difficulty co-ops have in funding. They cannot rely on angels, venture capital and investment banks that expect to have a payoff when the company has an IPO, because co-ops simply do not have them.
They could perhaps issue bonds if they are of sufficient size, of which most are not. The only avenues where they have similar access to capital as other firms is trying to obtain loans from commercial banks and credit from suppliers.
You really do not see any difference between suppliers - independent firms or freelancers which are contracting to provide a service and hopefully relying on many existing customers to generate revenue, and employees who contract their labor with primarily one firm in exchange for wages, and maybe if they have been selective enough, a meaningless piece of equity?
And moving the goalposts from employees of firms which produce goods for the market, to private household employees does not help your argument, unless you have incorporated your household. Maybe, some people do…
Again, how is this not true for government as well? All I am hearing is the same special pleading that somehow firms are different, and democratic membership who elect officials just won’t work. We do not elect every bureaucrat, or have referendums on every policy decision. Democratic governance and ownership does not mean micromanagement and uninformed participation. It means the members of that group have an equal say in how that group is run, and it is the duty of the group (be it a government or business) to provide its members with sufficient access to information so that they can make informed decisions about leadership and policy. If an individual is unable to have to obtain the knowledge necessary, I consider that a failure of the group, not the person. It is only if the person chooses to ignore that access and remain in ignorance, then a case could be made they should not have a vote.
Then why have democracy for anything? Why bother electing government officials? Your vote is only 1/x of the electorate which can be in the millions is some jurisdictions.
Rights to personal property such as houses, cars, etc. are different from investors rights. Investors have a very limited claim to the real property itself (I am pretty sure that the average shareholder cannot just walk into a corporate office and use whatever equipment they find laying about, similar to how a citizen cannot just walk into any government office and do the same.) But even that claim is greater than the employees who do use that real property and equipment.
Anyhow, the OP asked why leftists oppose corporations; I think I have stated why I oppose them well enough. I do not expect everyone to agree with those conclusions, but the discussion has been fun. I still haven’t decided if I am a democratic socialist or a social democrat, but I do agree people have the right to own property, and engage in commerce for whatever legal purpose they desire. My main disagreements are in regard to what property they may own, and how they engage in commerce. I do not support the current corporate model as either a socially responsible, equitable or efficient means of accomplishing those purposes, nor do I see it as capable of being reformed to do so.
So I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving and survived Black Friday as well. (Talking about issues with commerce, 4 or 5 am sales??? I don’t know who are worse - the businesses or the consumers. I know I am definitely glad I am no longer in retail.)
Firms and businesses are fundamentally different from government. You do not have a say in whether you follow the laws of the land (beyond your participation in the democratic process). Your employment with a company, however, is a mutually agreed apon relationship you have volunteered to enter into. The whole purpose of a business is to allow a group of people to come together to create a profitable product or service in whatever manner they deem fit to do so (within the confines of the law). Your “vote” is your ability to influence the company throgh your work or your ability to leave if you don’t like your job.
Everyone in a business does not get the same vote because everyone’s opinion is not as relevant. You are not all “equals” in the way that you are all equal under the law. If I am the manager of a group of 20 people for the past 10 years, I mostly don’t care about the opinion of some 1st year right out of college. They are not here to provide their input. They are here to learn how to do their job properly. As they gain experience and knowledge, then maybe their opinion will matter more.
This would be a valid argument if corporations were meritocracies where experience and knowledge were the determining factors in how corporations were run. They are not. They are oligarchies. Whoever has the most money, regardless of their knowledge or experience, makes the rules. Again, if the mailroom guy wins the lottery, or that kid out of college happens to be the niece or nephew of the CEO or the board chair, their opinions carry much more weight, no matter how naive or uninformed they might be.
One of many reasons why I support co-ops over corporations and even other business models is that co-ops encourage people to come together for more than just economic purposes. A person’s occupation is usually their primary means of engaging in society. Very few citizens devote as much time and resources to civics as they do to commerce. I consider a model which empowers its members, encourages their education and development, and practices democratic governance as being very beneficial to society in general as its members are more likely to use those commercial practices in other aspects of their lives. A model which does none of the above I consider being extremely detrimental to society. Since its employees have insufficient power to change their environment and the main recourse they have is to flee that environment, it encourages apathy or futility. And those attitudes are what carries over into the rest of their lives.
Capitalism can be democratic, and I see no reason it cannot be, or should not be. The corporate model does not only prevent democracy, it tends to actively discourage it and corrupt what democratic processes do exist. I think society will better promote the general welfare and enable more people to succeed in the pursuit of happiness when corporations are abolished. They are remnants of an aristocratic past, and should have no place in a democratic era.
You’re right, and you’ve stumbled on a fundamental flaw. What we need is some self-correcting mechanism to be put in place. Perhaps we could allow business which are run poorly, and which consistently fail to produce a profit, to go belly up. Perhaps we could put some promotion system in place within the corporation that allows the talented, skillful managers to rise the top instead of allotting all the managerial position to people based on their current net worth.
Brilliant! Do I get my Nobel Prize in Economics now?
So you don’t accept the argument, because starting your own company is too much work?
You realize that all those big evil corporations were started by somebody who was not afraid of the work and risk involved. But after they became successful, you would like to dictate to them how they should be run - even though you did none of the work, and took none of the risk.
Rather reminiscent of some business deals I have been offered - “you put up all the money and take all the risk, I will collect a salary, and we will split the profits 50-50”.
No thank you.
Regards,
Shodan
You really demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about how companies really work. For the most part, corporations are meritocracies. They aren’t perfect meritocracies and what constitutes “merit” can be highly subjective. But most companies have a defined career path and advancement tends to go to people who the company feels are showing superior performance. I mean people just don’t start their career as a vice president or CEO.
I’ve worked in places where they hired executives or client’s niece or son or whoever . In most cases, they had the qualifications to do the job. Maybe they are given a bit more slack. But they have as much or as little say in what goes on as any other analyst right out of college.
You can form whatever organization you like, so long as it generates a positive cash flow.
I would hope it encourages people to educate themselves and develop the skills that would put them in demand so that they can have more choice over what companies they work for. I’ve worked for companies (mostly smaller ones) where I did have a big impact on the work environment. In fact one of the requirements of working there was to be the sort of person looking to make those kind of impacts.
But you will find that most people in most organizations are pikers. They show up for their 9-5 (if you’re lucky), barely do exactly what they are told, and for some reason they expect to be treated like something other than drones. Of course it is the organization that fosters this sort of behavior by allowing it.
How does a non-personified entity (a corporation) “discourage” anything? It is not alive. It has no feelings, nor any intent. It’s merely a legal arrangement brought together voluntarily by investors, managers and employees.
The above sounds like the endless posts where someone on the SDMB claims the free market “does” this, or “does” that, to someone.
Corporations and the free market don’t do anything. They don’t discourage anything. They are merely collections of voluntary decisions made by individuals, subject to the laws of the land.
Since you love co-ops so much, I suggest you go out and start as many as possible. Start a co-op international airline, for example. Or a smelting plant. Or a bio-tech company. Or a vulcanization facility for tires. Or a port for unloading cargo containers from the Far East.
Then report back and tell us how it’s going.
One thing I believe you’ll find is that your beloved “co-op” (which I presume has imbedded itself in your brain via the wholesome, local organic food store down the lane that plays folk music on Thursday afternoons) arranged itself for exactly the same reason that a corporation did.
The members of the co-op aggregated their purchasing and negotiating power to get better use of the limited capital at their disposal. It was tougher going it alone. They get a better deal when they band together.
That’s exactly the same reason many corporations form. To aggregate capital in order to obtain scale and leverage. It sounds sinister when it’s done by a guy wearing a business suit and driving a Mercedes. I realize it’s so much more wholesome when done by sandal-wearing, Ralph Nader supporters who burn incense and drink tea.
Hmmm…
I think you keep missing the larger point which is that business can, and I think should, be more than just a purely profit-driven machine.
Again, the larger issue is not promotion or management within the corporation. It is who selects that management and what policies are used for promotion. Yes, most managers are promoted or hired based on skill - which is true for co-operatives as well. The same is not true for the shareholders and the board members elected to oversee the corporation.
No, I do not accept the argument since it implies that there is nothing wrong with undemocratic organizations as long as one is able to start a democratic one. So as long as we live in a free country, who cares what dictators and tyrants do? So long as I work for a co-op or for myself, who cares what other businesses do?
No, they were started by people who wanted to limit their liability and minimize any personal risk. Those are not necessarily bad things, but my complaint is with how those goals are achieved.
No, not dictate. Engage in the democratic process to change the rules of the game. If corporations do not like anyone outside the organization ‘dictating’ how they should be run, they should not have incorporated in democratic countries. But they did, so I use that to my advantage, the same as how they use it to their advantage.
The whole field of organizational behavior has been developed to examine these issues, and they have found that organizational governance does have a profound effect on the attitudes of the members of that organization. Which is why the one of the main questions in that field is how to promote types of governance that promote better attitudes. Corporations have definitely shown they are great at developing the attitude that money or cash-flow or profit are the only things that matter and the attitude that employee welfare, empowerment, education and development are only to be pursued if they have a measurable financial return. Fortunately, they have, so much good work is being done regardless of the motives. Far greater work could be done if we could somehow expand the mandate of those organizations where people spend the majority of their waking hours to more than just profit-seeking.
yet study after study shows that they do. A real enigma, ain’t it? Except for the fact that many of the people engaged in corporate activities use that legal arrangement as an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. And unfortunately that legal arrangement has been personified and endowed with rights separate from all those voluntary participants.
No, all the research I have done has shown the exact opposite. If the founders of a co-op just wanted to make money, the standard corporation is much easier to implement. (And by the by, I cannot stand folk music. More into punk and electronica actually. You know, the stuff they play on Mondays and Wednesdays…)
From my last cite:
I found this to be true far more often that not. It is more than just a feel-good statement issued by a trade association. It is an accurate reflection of those who take the extra effort necessary to form a co-op, and of those who seek to become a member of one.
I know it is a scary idea, but commerce can be used for more just than making money, and generally is. It is only through the misrepresentation of capitalists than humanity’s “propensity to truck, barter and exchange” has been perverted into a scheme were money is the only valid, and often the only legal, purpose.
If the butcher, brewer or baker was only concerned with profit, there are easier ways I think than being a butcher, brewer (well, not them actually) or a baker. Most people chose their occupation based on what they enjoy and how it enables them to make a positive contribution to society. Income is a secondary motive. Unfortunately, far too many are only able to pursue that occupation working in an environment that does not give a rat’s ass what they enjoy or if their contribution is positive, only that it is profitable.
I’m not sure that “most people” choose their careers as you say. Lots of people just fall into a job that’s available. Perhaps it’s true of people who start their own businesses, but that’s a considerable minority.
At any rate, why don’t you tell us how we are to achieve your goal. What laws do you pass and how does our country fare in a world full of other countries that don’t have those laws?
There is nothing wrong with an undemocratic organization as long as it is voluntary.
It seems to me that you ascribe to the bizarre leftist notiong that money and profit are somehow inherently “evil”. Money is merely a form of communicating value. And profit lets us know that our contributions are having a positive effect in creating value. An organization that is not profitable is using more resources than it is creating in terms of real value and those resources would be better spent somewhere else in the economy.
You seem to neglect the fact that commerce does, in fact, do more than simply “make money”. Businesses are providing real products and services that benefit people. Profit encourages business to make more of those products.
The simple reality is that not everyone can get to do whatever job they want because society only needs so many butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. If you can’t find a job in your chosen field, that is the market telling you that you should either find some other profession that society needs or figure out some creative way to offer something different and unique in your current profession.
Shareholders are “selected” because they have money and wish to invest in enterprises that they believe will continue to make money. It’s a self selecting process where those who are able to consistently identify businesses that make money will continue to have money to invest in businesses.
It seems a lot of people have forgotten Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and other examples of corporate insiders making it their own piggy bank. There is no purity in corporations. it seems to be natural to think of ways to cheat. That is why we need policing and regulation.
The last month or so before Enron’s accounting cheating came out, the execs rewarded themselves huge bonuses. They walked off with millions while employees and stockholders got killed.
I don’t know if it is possible to make corporations more transparent. If it is not, then the argument for their existence has a huge hole in it. The execs select the board that determines salaries and bonuses. Isn’t it odd that they have gone up,up and up? Corporate profits are being gobbled up by the big bosses. That limits working capital too.
No argument there. Corporations need policing and regulation just like regular people do.