Registered: Apr 2002
01-02-09 09:02 PM
Quote from Sandybestdog:
Hey jaska$$ you contridicted yourself. First you say my ideas are Communist and then you say my idea of reinvesting profits is the stock market. I don't think Communism has a stock market. Which one is it? I donít think Communism rewards you directly by how well your individual business has done. And in Communism the STATE owns all production, NOT the workers. Do you sit there and listen to Sean Hannity all day or something? You sound very ignorant.
Let me get this straight. The current system works like this. The company hires employees to do a job and pays them just enough so they wonít quit, and the employees works a job just enough so they donít get fired. Incentive is absent. Efficiency is almost non existent. The customer doesnít receive the experience that they should. I propose a different system whereby the employees have a direct impact in the profits and losses of the company and share it accordingly. Obviously a new hire in high school is not going to receive the same bonus check as the General Manager who has been there a couple of years. Then when itís time to build and expand the business, instead of getting an investor to put up the money who simply cares about his return on investment, the employees would instead become partners in the expansion. You think system 1 is better than number 2? Can I get some feedback from everybody else, I donít understand this.
You are right, smart work pays off not necessarily hard work. So I want to exploit the weaknesses of other businesses. Very few low wage jobs offer any sort of bonus or advancement opportunities. Yet there is great money making opportunities in these areas.
BTW if Iím ever able to do anything like this and ever have a large business, we will never go public. The stock market is the worst thing for a business. All the investors care about is money. They donít care if the employees get screwed over so they can get a dividend. They donít care how the business makes money, they just want results and will dump you as soon as you donít live up to their expectations. Thatís how it goes I guess, but I wonít be apart of it. The profit thatís split wonít be company wide, it will be on a per store basis.
funny! I felt bad for you at first, but no longer.
no contradictions here.
Please don't argue economics or anything with me, unless you know what you are talking about. You have no clue of what you speak and that is likely why you have not advanced. Here is a brief overview of the marxist/communist ideal, it fits your beliefs perfectly. any questions?
Marxist analysis of ownership of MoP within capitalism
The analysis of people's relationships with the means of production is one element that stands at the basis of Marxism. Marxists argue that those means of production participate in the process of exploiting labor for surplus value. To the question of why classes exist in human societies in the first place, Karl Marx offered an historical explanation that it was the cultural practice of Ownership of the Means of Production that gives rise to them. This explanation differs dramatically from other explanations based on "differences in ability" between individuals or on religious or political affiliations giving rise to castes. This explanation is consistent with the bulk of Marxist theory in which Politics and Religion are seen as mere outgrowths (superstructures) of the basic underlying economic reality of a people. To remain consistent with these principles, an explanation as to why classes exist in a society must derive from causes that are essentially economic in nature, and appeal to the alleged underlying reality of material production.
There are two subtle but important points to the Ownership of the Means of Production. The first being that owning the Means of Production is not the same thing as owning physical property, nor is it equal to owning money. Rather OMP refers to a cultural practice in which a few individuals within a larger corporation (or company) control and decide what is done with the entire profit created by that corporation. If one were to define the word "Corporation" as a particular kind of "group of people" then to later say that a few select individuals "own the corporation" then, by substitution, one must be saying that those select individuals own the group of people. In any case, this apparent paradox only arises when one confuses the owning of property with the owning of a corporation. When keeping these two kinds of ownership separate, the paradox of "owning people" evaporates.
The conclusion ultimately reached is that while the "owners" of a corporation only contribute a tiny fraction of the total labor and time in creating profit, they have complete control over that profit and how it is used. The practice of OMP in human societies is then a type of game where some people are labeled owners (Marx used the term, Bourgeoisie) and other people are labeled workers (Marx used the term, Proletariat). The bourgeoisie have complete control over both how the proletariat are paid in wages and complete control over how the profit from production is used, thus giving rise to a class division.
Contrarian interpretations of this practice might state that wages paid to workers are subsumed under the regular costs of maintaining business. However, Marx considered it a reification to treat labor as just another "factor" in production; it implied an inversion of means and ends, so that people were effectively used as things.
Marx's terms are often employed in economic analysis by socialists who advocate public ownership of some or all of the means of production. The affinity between labor movement causes and this advocacy is very strong - and often shared by social democrats, socialists, communists and greens. Marx's analysis in particular helped to make clear the key differences between capital and "labor".
Marxists define economic systems in terms of how the means of production are used, and which social class controls them. Thus, in capitalism, the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie, (the "capitalists" - the owners of capital). In the pure ideal of socialism, such as that "communism" was/is supposed to be, the MoP are controlled by the workers production collectives directly. In fact this situation has only been historically realized temporarily such as in the Israeli kibbutz or the early Soviets before the entrenchment of the communist party as a "New Class", or in isolated or preliminary form such as in the final phase of the Second Spanish Republic, or various experimental utopian communities.