Economics 1: Alternative Company Models
•
by Radsoc
From the previous article on economics "Introduction to Economics", we've learnt what profit is, and how it is generated. Now we'll take a closer look at Alternative Company Models.
For an employee the goal is to maximize salary, while the goal of a capitalist (GM / Company owner) is to maximize profit and thus minimize salaries for his employees. Obviously salaries have to be on at least a level that doesn't make the worker starve. Starvation hits the skill/wellness levels of the worker and the productivity of the company. As an owner you don't want productivity to decrease. Observe that there are two opposite interests here. The one of the owners, and the one of the employees.
Is this whole system of workers generating profits for the owners in the interest of the workers? One might argue that the company owners provide jobs, and they do, but are there no alternative companies models that aren't based on what we call capitalist exploitation? Are capitalists needed for companies to exist? As we saw in the previous article, the answer is no.
Practical Considerations of Collective Ownership
Workers Self-Management
All employees own the company through an SO. This means that the values of what you produce end up in your pockets according to the amount you've produced. All income go back to the workers and does not end up in the private hands of a single owner who doesn't work himself.
This kind of SO can be created in the forum. The costs of starting a company in itself can be financed by many workers getting together donating the amount 40Gold/#workers per worker to the SO. In a socialist state, the workers would be able to request state funding or loans for this purpose through a state SO bank like "Nordbanken". Today we have a liberal state, at least in Sweden.
In this country there is at least one self-managed workers' company. It's called MSAP Solidaritetsmat. A food producer.
State Ownership
Depending on the goals of the state, i.e. depending on what interests it represents (the owners in the financial elite or the workers, non-socialist or socialist), the state will create state-owned companies in various production sectors. If the state is a worker-state there will be state ownership in all of these. Profits won't end up in private hands like in the standard capitalist ownership model, but in the hands of society. Workers (as they are in power) will be able to decide how big this profit is through their ruling party or labour union, and how much they get to keep. Profits in one sector could fund and subsidize other sectors like housing, hospitals, guns and so forth. Houses could be made affordable for all and thus improving the overall wellness and productivity of the country making it stronger. This instead of having all profits end up in private hands and fund a great deal of houses for a few.
This country can be made very successful,if these kind of things aren't left to the individual or the market who usually can't afford or coordinate the improvement of the situation all by itself.
Like in the workers self management case, there would be need for SO's. Preferably one such to balance losses and subsidies among the companies according to need. We can call it "Staten" ("The State"). An SO like Staten would guarantee the possibility to plan the economy to make it rational and more successful. It would guarantee hospitals, work and housing for all. That is unique in the world.
An example of the success of state ownership is the one of hospitals in Sweden. The hospital-market collapsed and wasn't affordable enough. Eventually no hospitals were produced. The state went in and socialized the sector. Now we have the worlds highest amount and quality of hospitals. No other country or market has managed this.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
\"the goal of a capitalist (GM / Company owner) is to maximize profit and thus minimize salaries for his employees.\"
The goal of a \"capitalist\" is to maximize profit and thus have someone to sell his products to, as well as make sure that his employees don\'t leave the company for a better job at one of his competitors. Employers can\'t \"exploit\" their employees without facing the consequences...
...unless the workers are too busy discussing \"worker\'s rights\" instead of searching for better, less \"exploitative\" jobs.
\"All income go back to the workers and does not end up in the private hands of a single owner who doesn\'t work himself.\"
Yeah, the invested gold just poured down from the sky one day. And the owner doesn\'t do any managing at all. Seriously, were it not for those money-hungry imperialists...
\"Profits won\'t end up in private hands like in the standard capitalist ownership model, but in the hands of society.\"
Whose hands are those? Mine? Yours? Everyone\'s? From what I\'ve read further on, you probably noticed that public ownership and operation would replace private initiative (and the scary part is that you support the idea either way), while omitting the fact that such a mode of activity practically always spawns one thing: parasites. You\'ve never lived anywhere east of the Iron Curtain, have you?
I\'m a worker. I don\'t plan on running my own company. I just work and train.
When the Czech Republic was in a crisis and the only food I could afford costed twice my daily salary, I didn\'t start my own bolshevik crusade against the owners and in support of socialism. The people made it through the crisis unscathed thanks to private gift-giving initiatives and charity (though it was the tax cuts that allowed the national economy to get back on her horse).
That was the rational part.
Now seriously: you\'re sick.
Your arguments are silly. \"money-hungry imperialists\" \"\"capitalists\"\" \"bolshevik crusade\" \"charity\" \"iron curtain\".
All private companies are based on exploitation as explained in the introductory article. If there is competition about the jobs, i.e. if there is unemployment, and no other means to earn money, your only choice is to pick a job for a set of conditions where you are exploited if you want to survive.
The invested gold is also covered in the previous article.
Public ownership wouldn\'t replace private initiative. Noone can stop anybody from creating a company, but collectively owned companies will always have better conditions because of the fact that they are controlled by the workers themselves. Profits don\'t end up in one pocket. There is no need for profits, so there is more room for higher salaries. If some random private person sees a need for something, the state can do the same. There are like 4-5 goods in this game, so that\'s definitely not difficult. You seem to apply real-life brainwash to this game.
\"the Iron Curtain\" has nothing to do with this.
Parasites? Who would that be? The only parasitic company model is the one that works according to the principles of private ownership.
So people should rely on charity like dogs? In my opinion people should be able to earn a living by working and not be dependent on some people who think you\'ve deserved some food. Who are they to decide if you\'re going to live or die?
Were not talking about religion here - don\'t mix God into this.
We\'re talking about the communism being an opressive, inefficient system doomed to fail.
I know Russians would love to have USSR back, but mostly because it looked big on the map, everybody was afraid of it and people didn\'t have to think for themselves.
So in what way is it oppressive? How can collective ownership be oppressive?
Collective ownership is, as has been shown, very efficient.
And as you said, don\'t mix in the real world into this. That\'s a discussion suitable for some real life politics forum.
Why shouldn\'t we? You\'re the first that mentioned religion - which is a IRL thing, not having anything to do with the game.
You obviously haven\'t read the comments. So if someone mentions a real life thing, like the iron curtain and bad mouths democracy to promote monarchy that\'s right, but it\'s wrong to mention religion?
And why don\'t you answer my questions. Why is collective ownership doomed to fail? It seems like it\'s something you\'ve learnt at school or when you read some RL non-socialist newspaper.
And yes, we\'re still talking about the game.
And why don\'t you answer my questions. Why is collective ownership doomed to fail?
Diffusion of responsibility - that\'s all that needs to be said.
There are managers, economists, and engineers in collective companies too. All people have different responsiblities. That\'s for state-owned companies.
I also think that workers in a worker-owned company are more responsible than those who work in private companies. You care about what you own.