If capitalists exploit workers, why then workers don't make their own factories?

Once a worker owns a factory for the purpose of profit, he is a capatilist and no longer a 'worker'.

Is this meant to be a question?

why workers don't own collectelly a factory rather than letting a capitalist to exploit them?

Are you an idiot?

why workers don't make a strike and put the capitalist out of bussiness then by taking the factory?

You understand you can be both capitilist and wroker, right?

I literally have no idea what you are trying to do.

Stop?

Because a collective of workers can't compete with the efficiencies of a capitalist. Because they're not competitive in the capitalist system, which prioritizes capital at the cost of human contentment, their company will fail. Until consumers decide that human contentment is more important than having more money, capitalists will outcompete socialists.

I'm literally asking why workers don't take over the factory rather than letting the capitalist to exploit them.

you seem unable to understand my question.

How does material theory effect most university communists on here when they aim to be in service based industries? Do they want to group own schools and law firms? Most of the first world is post industrial with most jobs in service

Your question has been answered, over and over again. Once a worker aquires a factory he becomes a fucking capitilist.

How do you not understand that? You are not one or the other you transition from both as your property changes.

Are you actually retarded? Are you literally asking why don't workers just steal property, since they are the ones hired to do the work? What the fuck is wrong with you?

That's literal theft.

I'm not asking about a single individual becoming a capitalist.

I'm asking about all the employees of the factory agreeing at the same time to own the factory and dump the capitalist.

you seem unable to have reading comprehension.

because the people who have an interest in creating their own factories might not necessarily have the skill needed to know how to construct one from scratch.

they'll need a loan from the bank to purchase the raw materials needed to create the factory and all of its machinery too. assuming that this factory you're building is going to be a worker owned cooperative, going to the bank and saying 'we're making a cooperative bank that will pay its workers more equitably' directly translates to 'less profitable for the bank since the workers are going to take more of the revenue than a capitalist enterprise allows them to'. there's less incentive for the bank to loan the money necessary to purchase the raw materials for the factory.

the answer is that making a business is difficult, and takes a lot of money under the current system. cooperatives can never be competitive with capitalist enterprises either unless the cooperatives lower the wages of their workers to an equivalent level to the capitalist. in essence, cooperatives have to exploit themselves under the capitalist system. it's simply easier to work for porky than to create a factory from scratch.

>I'm asking about all the employees of the factory agreeing at the same time to own the factory and dump the capitalist.

So yes, you are asking why the workers don't just get together and steal the factory from the rightful owner?

You are an idiot, cya.

So let's assume you are successful and manage to open your own fast-food restaurant, congratulations!

Now how do you plan to keep up with your competitors advertising? Most of whom have several hundreds times your income and an extensive team of lawyers patiently waiting for one fuck up at your new restaurant, and they are also trying to push you out of business so that they may acquire your new store, how will you deal with these competitors? Odds are they can sell their food for a lot less and more efficiently.

How many months do you think your fledgeling chain can survive before you're broke or owned by someone else?

>How many months do you think your fledgeling chain can survive before you're broke or owned by someone else?
Congratulations, you understand just how competetive the economy is.

>a collective of workers can't compete with the efficiencies of a capitalist.
>implying intensifies

I'm literally asking about the marxists ideas dumbass.
they're not mine.

if workers are so exploited by the system, why they don't in all factories take the ownership of the factories at the same time in a country?

It's an hypothetical based on shit I see from marxists.

fucking retard.

Just open a cooperative restaurant, shit you could open a cooperative concrete or mason company for nothing, or 50k for a loader

>less profitable for the bank
...so they're... going to pay back less of the loan?
A $100k loan is a $100k loan, sir, it pays back at the interest rate set by the bank.

Sounds like a good thing to me, don't a lot of people starve in not-real-communism countries

Sometimes they do and then they become the capability that oppress the workers.

It doesn't matter who thought these ideas up.

Literally what you are doing is asking why workers don't steal the factories they are hired to work in from someone who built the system rightfully and in most cases lawfully.

It doesn't matter who thought it up first, YOU are asking for clarification in this idiotic "old-world" ideal.

Ignoramus.

>if workers are so exploited by the system, why they don't in all factories take the ownership of the factories at the same time in a country?

because they don't recognize their exploitation by and large. they are not aware that their full worth is not being paid to them, and if they are aware, they do not care enough to revolt. that is why this doesn't occur.

fair enough. i shouldn't have used the bank example. investors would've been a better group to point to where my scenario is valid. thank you for correcting me.

I decided to race a friend of mine. A day before the race I shoot both his kneecaps, this is fair because it's competitive and I can ignore any protest because it makes me feel good.

Who is going to want to work and live in a society where everything you have spent your life working for can just be taken away in an instant by butthurt workers? Whats stopping the workers who are hired by the previous workers who now own the facotry from 'feeling exploited' and taking the factory from the new owenrs?

Did you even think about what you are asking

>this post
Kek. Surely it's agasint the rules to gain an unfair competetive advantage.

It's not like Govt's have laws in place to ensure a safe and competetive landscape in the interest of profit.

You're an idiot, breh.

>Whats stopping the workers who are hired by the previous workers who now own the facotry from 'feeling exploited' and taking the factory from the new owenrs?

mate, the workers that overthrow the capitalist owner do not become the new capitalists. they're still the workers of the place. they don't hire anyone else to work below them at a wage that's less than their value. what happens is the removal of the profiteer, that's it. there is no new exploitative relation following the overthrow by the workers.

they're not my ideas nigger.

>removal of the profiteer
Kek no.

It removes the worker. Are you retarded? The capitlist is simply willingly exploiting himself as a way to not exploit others.

Holy shit, you are actually retarded. And yes, you are all for grand larceny. Fuck building anything for yourself just gather all the workers and take want you want!

Fucking scum.

How come people don't recognize material theory as bullshit when the bourgeoisie established themselves from nothing three generations prior to das kapital, and have already become a meshlike class in neoliberal countries. Shouldn't the aristocrats used their unfair advantages to become plutocrats still in power to this day?

Were already in a post capital world of human capital, doctors are more important than some T shirt factory

As evidenced by the point you can only parrot others ideals and thoughts.

Think for yourself fucking idiot. Then maybe, just maybe you will see the problems with Marxism in a modern world.

R
E
T
A
R
D

>It removes the worker. The capitlist is simply willingly exploiting himself as a way to not exploit others.

how did you arrive at this? could you explain your thought process?

>Fuck building anything for yourself just gather all the workers and take want you want!

do you think advancement just stops under communism? people suddenly no longer want to build means of production that can produce new goods for the many? i'm confused at how you arrived at these conclusions. any further elaboration from you would be extremely helpful in addressing your thoughts.

I want to read this board opinions, fucking dumbass.

Almost every post without a reply in this thread is me, marxist step right over me to debate a strawmen because they have no interest in anything but feeding their egos

They can all pool their money together and start a co-op you fucking dimwit. 20 workers have more money collectively than a single small business owner

I am done, I spent 10 minutes reordering my reply, but you are an idiot, everything you said has been adressed over and over.

You have no ideas about communism and how it could work, all you do is parrot these tried and failed ideals.

Kill yourself, ignorant pleb. Who cannot even speak proper English and then you complain about others reading comp.

God dam.

Opionions on what? One of the most discussed political ideals in modern times? What? Why? Are you an idiot?

Let's not even get started on the fact that this board is a collective it doesn't have an opinion. It has many people with many different opinions. Like anywhere fucking else.

You aren't even interested in this. Just parroting some shit over and fucking over in borken ass English.

GO away.

because I'm a newfag.

well, let me correct your opinion, even if you're no longer going to post. i'll do my best based on what you've said so far.

when the workers decide to take control of the factory, they do not stop being workers. they're still the workers of the factory. its true the workers become the new owners of the factory, but that doesn't mean that they hire new workers who are exploited by the new owning group (the initial workers who revolted) to earn less than they create in value. the workers who revolt and take control of the means of production from the capitalist will be paying themselves and anyone who signs on with them their true worth- their labor value. that's what exploitation is all about in the marxist perspective. exploitation is derived from the difference between the wage paid to the laborer and the value they add to a product in any given hour.

example: the average mcdonalds employee might create 15 dollars in value per hour by ordering raw materials (bun, tomato, patty, lettuce, cheese, what have you) into a completed burger. the 15 dollar amount is derived from the market cost of all those raw materials separately and the market cost of the final product, the burger. it's in this sense that labor creates value. the raw materials altogether might add up to say, 2 dollars, but through the ordering of them into a proper burger through human labor, can be sold for 3 dollars. so, if a burger maker made 15 hamburgers in an hour with this set group of ingredients, they would have made approximately 15 dollars in labor.

but the capitalist is going to pay the worker 12 dollars an hour, since that's minimum wage where i live. the worker is thus paid 3 less dollars per hour than the value they create with their labor. under communism, this differential would attempt to be mitigated as much as possible. there would still be some value unpaid to the worker due to expenses like wear and tear. but the workers will receive more with the capitalist absent.

>but the workers will receive more with the capitalist absent.
Yep but then no one does anything for fear of it all being taken away by 'exploited workers'.

Sure advancement may continue, at an extremley slow rate though. You are kidding yourself if you think a communist socitey is the most effective way to advance technology, admit we live in a modern world where workers are no way near exploited to the level they were calling for the action which you are. There will always, as you said be a discrepency and the level of first world capitlisim has adressed said discrepency, evidently to a satisfactory level.

We are not ready for a communist society, that's for the far future. We need to advance as fast as we can - capitlisim achieves this.

THis is totally disregarding the fact that a true communist society will come about democratically and in a capitilistic sense, much like what Hitler attempted.

>fear of it all being taken away by 'exploited workers'.

when the workers own all the means of production, there isn't anything to be afraid of. if there's still a private enterprise that depends on the exploitation of workers, then yes, you probably should be afraid, because you're going to get attacked. it's no different from how feudal relations were dissipated at the end of feudalism in the transition to capitalism.

>advancement may continue, at an extremley slow rate though. You are kidding yourself if you think a communist socitey is the most effective way to advance technology

you haven't provided me any reason to believe this is true though. human ingenuity doesn't disappear because private property doesn't exist anymore. under communism, you'd need to get your good idea permitted by 'the people' at large first of course, since they control production and how it is allocated, and yes that might take a little longer than appealing to a group of investors, but that democratic process of production is going to be what makes communism desirable. everyone will have a say, and people will have more control over their economic and political lives than they have now. i don't consider it a negative aspect of communism.

>admit we live in a modern world where workers are no way near exploited to the level they were calling for the action which you are

how do you explain the falling wages of the last three decades and the consequent raise of ruling class wealth? people are being more exploited, they just don't care because there are nice electronics to distract them. boards like Veeky Forums to browse and forget one's worries. exploitation continues, more blatant than ever, but is ignored conveniently.

>a true communist society will come about democratically and in a capitilistic sense

i agree with the democratically bit- a popular revolution is required. explain the second bit though. in what manner will the transition be capitalistic?

i want to further expand on some stuff i wasn't able to touch because of the character limit.

you claimed
>no one does anything for fear of it all being taken away by 'exploited workers'.

this doesn't make any sense at all. you seem to think the 'exploited workers' aren't actually workers, and that their supposed totalitarianism would somehow prevent people from 'doing anything'. what do you mean by 'doing anything' here? people still need to work because human labor is necessary to create goods and services. people will not suddenly stop working because the relations of production change.

furthermore, just what do you imagine workers who revolt to be? a new ruling class that will stomp anyone out they disagree with? that's part of the goal, yes, having a dictatorship of the workers, but other workers shouldn't fear other workers. other workers should only fear other workers if these workers hold on to capitalist relations of production, which will be violently removed.

i wanted to touch on why the discrepancy between labor value created and wage given to the laborer is exploitative. it's exploitative precisely because the worker doesn't have much of a choice in the matter- choosing not to work in our society means you'll receive no wage. you may be able to survive off of welfare, but depending on your location the welfare check may not adequately cover a reasonable standard of living. in this sense, you're coerced into work, because if you don't you will likely live a shitty and lacking life. because you're coerced into working, the capitalist can arrange a contract that benefits them especially, which is where the labor value - wage discrepancy comes in. wage labor is exploitative because it coerces the laborer into performing it. they do not have much of a choice in the matter. it is non-voluntary, and is thus exploitative.

Holy shit you are a self righteous moron

youre an idiot dude, leave this board

writer of
and other posts here

op if you have any other questions i am free to answer them. it seems the guy who was so intent on beating you into the ground with insults has left the thread. if nothing else i'd like to do what i can to explain any ideas of socialism/communism you're still up in the air about. please let me know if you have any questions.

>but depending on your location the welfare check may not adequately cover a reasonable standard of living.
This is all I need to adress.

It is full on 'first-world' syndrome. I can garuntee you people living within their means on a welfare check are able to make ends meet if they do not endlessly induldge in consumer culture and live in a modest area/house.

That's your problem, you want things to be better when simply, you do not deserve it. Your whole system relies on these peoples who had actual smarts and created something of worth, and then was able to exploit workers into making more money although the workers are on the short end of the stick, its better than nothing though and things have continually gotten better for the worker at the expense of the capatalist.

Simply because they are the 'workers' they deserve the best of the best? Fucking most of the jobs you are basing these workers rights off of have been replaced by bloody robots. Nothing you have said holds any weight in our modern society, which I have said multiple times.

Dignity. Honor. A desire to not perpetuate what is wrong.

You know, fag memes.

>Where is a worker going to get the capital they need to make a factory?
where did the capitalist get it?

You want a brick layer to have a say in a multi-national billion dollar building company?

How are you meant to get anywhere when 10,000 workers across the planet are in control of one company.

Are you guys actually idiotic?

>where did the capitalist get it?
Inheritance.

See, this is why capatalisim is great. It gives those who didn't have a chance a go, via innovation and pure good work. Anyone can become a capatalist. It's not set in stone.

>I can garuntee you people living within their means on a welfare check are able to make ends meet if they do not endlessly induldge in consumer culture and live in a modest area/house.

if you can prove it, great. i'll take what you said as truth.

>Your whole system relies on these peoples who had actual smarts and created something of worth

people who are innovators will not be harmed or removed in communist society. people like bill gates will obviously be prized for the products they create. what socialism is opposed to is capitalists who extract profit off of the labor of others. we can revere bill gates for the useful products they made, but dislike him for the extraction of wealth he performs on his laborers. it's not like the issue isn't multifaceted. again, no one wants to murder innovators. they are in fact very important towards the advancement of humanity.

>have continually gotten better for the worker at the expense of the capatalist

in what sense have things 'gotten better'? because we have access to more products that innovators though up and labor created? there's no inherent need to have private property to spur growth or prosperity. what private property does is consolidate wealth in the hands of few people- it does not have much to do with the creation of new products that benefit all.

>Simply because they are the 'workers' they deserve the best of the best?

no, they deserve what they gave to society. that's not 'the best of the best'. that's called a fair exchange. it's something capitalism likes to pride itself on. you get what you put in, right? the workers under capitalism have NEVER EVER got what they put in. never.

>Fucking most of the jobs you are basing these workers rights off of have been replaced by bloody robots.

everything i've said applies to the service sector as well. i'm not opposed to automation. i in fact welcome it. i am very excited to see human labor no longer necessary, so that we can do what we want.

has it right, but then you have to ask where the capitalist's father got it. and where their father got it, and so on.

capital comes from holding on to the value created from labor, whether that be your wage as a worker or your profit as a capitalist. profit is derived from the exploitation of labor, as stated.

capital's source is undeniably labor throughout all of time. the root of capital has never not been labor. never.

and to address , while it might be true that anyone could become a capitalist through innovation or hard work, that does not justify the relation between the capitalist and the worker. being able to become an exploiter doesn't mean the system is free of any criticism. i can still criticize the exploitative relations, regardless of the ability to become one. i would never want to become a capitalist because i do not wish to exploit people, personally. even if it's in my self interest to become one financially, i'm not interested in creating a scenario in which i prey on the conditions of others for my own self gain.

>if you can prove it, great. i'll take what you said as truth.
It can easily be proven. Do you understand how a welfare check is calculated? You understand it is literally meant to provide you with your most basic needs. It's based off of extensive market research and cost of living analysis realtive to each respective country.

It's not some arbitrary number.

>people who are innovators will not be harmed........

Holy shit, you are truly an idiot. There is nothing I can say to that. Speechless. All I am saying is no one will innovate or at least your system is based on these innovators and you bring murder and purging into it. Jesus. What a great system.

>in what sense have things 'gotten better'?
Less infant death rates. Less mothers dying in child birth. More advances in medicines. General longer length of life. Many ways, that's not even touching on the unions and strikes that have been endlessly happening. Thanks to the advances in a captalist society. Your argument is literally -
>it happened with capatalist's so therefore communists could do it too.
Even though you are advocating for the murder of most of the peoples who are responsible for our advances.

>it does not have much to do with the creation of new products that benefit all.
lel. You don't actually believe that do you?
All our advances came out of nowhere, not because people wanted products and knowledge to sell, to be the first to have it, came out of nowhere. Literally every single civilsation since the onset of civilisation has been a capatalist one, in some form or another.

>hat's called a fair exchange.
An agreed upon wage is a god dam fair exchange, you moron.

I like how literally every time I said everything you have said is baseless in this modern world, you havent even touched it.

Actually done now, you are a delusional idiot living in fairy land and honestly cannot believe I replied this seriously for this long.

I know right? Poverty is just a mindset.
It doesn't matter the social conditions on wich a person is born, just his mere belief that it's possible for him/her to be has rich has the most succesfull capitalist.
A kid born in the shittiest location of somalia can perfectly work and be has rich and competitive has focking rockefeller, if he believes he can and work to do.
That is why capitalism is fair to everybody.

>this is the fault of capitalisim
>not the endless corrupt regimes plauging most African nations
Kek.

>You understand it is literally meant to provide you with your most basic needs.

would you be happy right now if you were only afforded your basic needs? i'm saying that no one today in a first world country believes that's a reasonable standard of living. if you were to ask a random selection of people their opinion on this, i'm certain most would say that just basic needs- food, water, shelter, what have you- are not enough for a true 'life'.

>All I am saying is no one will innovate or at least your system is based on these innovators

and you provided no reasoning to believe your statement is true. i assumed the worst because you've tended to jump to extremes throughout this thread.

>Less infant death rates. Less mothers dying in child birth. More advances in medicines. General longer length of life.

and you would have to prove to me that those things are all a result of SPECIFIC PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONS in order for me to buy your argument that CAPITALISM is the reason those advancements occurred. if you honestly think that these advances would stop under communism just because there's no profit to be made, i don't really know what to say. why would we suddenly want to stop improving our standard of living just because we don't profit financially from it? we obviously benefit from the things you listed in ways beyond just profiteering. you have not provided a single rational reason for me to believe that your claims of innovation dissipating without private property relations are true. you have to prove this to me logically rather than slinging insults at me. please do so if you can.

>Even though you are advocating for the murder of most of the peoples who are responsible for our advances.

prove to me that private property owners create all of society's innovations themselves and i'll say you're right. they don't, though. they pay for those innovations to be created, but they are not the express creator 9/10 times.

cont.

You are actually going again.

Lol. I wouldn't bother.

Because they don't have the capital.

>prove to me that private property owners create all of society's innovations themselves
>they pay for those innovations to be created

You did it yourself.

>That's what bank loans are for
Guess who is the capitalist in this example. Management and labor can both be workers and not capitalists.

>All our advances came out of nowhere, not because people wanted products and knowledge to sell, to be the first to have it, came out of nowhere.

i didn't say that, and i don't believe you conclude i believe that from the statement you took out of my paragraph. i won't deny that profit is indeed a motive for innovation, yes, but i deny that it's the only motive, or even the primary motive in many cases. and no, nothing comes 'out of nowhere.' things happen because people desire them to happen. if you honestly think that advances in preventing infant death are related to making money rather than enriching human life, i don't know what more to say other than i believe that's a very cynical view of humanity's motivations.

>Literally every single civilsation since the onset of civilisation has been a capatalist one, in some form or another.

demonstrably false. you can read the history of society and find that private property relations were not generated until the 16th-17th centuries.

>An agreed upon wage is a god dam fair exchange, you moron.

no, it's not necessarily. because one party has more reason to accept the deal than the other. if would be a fair exchange if both parties were on an equal ground, but that's obviously not the case, since the worker has more reason to desire the job due to the necessity of money.

>I like how literally every time I said everything you have said is baseless in this modern world, you havent even touched it.

because you didn't explain how what i said didn't apply to the modern world! a lot of this is on you for not elaborating on what i should touch on. as i stated, the exploitative relation between private property owners and workers holds for service industries as well. prove to me it does not.

i will keep bothering, because it's through discussion i can change minds.

you can see how the paying of something to occur is not necessarily the same as creating it, right? is that not clear to you? it's the labor that creates the innovation. it's true that the money motivates labor, but it only does that because money is necessary to purchase the means of subsistence in today's society. the actual CREATION of products or advances comes from the laborer, and not the capitalist. the capitalist provides the circumstantial means to provoke labor (circumstantial because of course money is necessary for survival today), but they do not CREATE themselves. they are superfluous. cut out the need for money to live, and they become completely worthless.

next you'll ask how i plan to do that. that'd take a while to explain, but i will do so if you wish.

>because it's through discussion i can change minds.
An ill concieved parrot of 1800's ideaology will not fucking work in 2016. 99% of the jobs which he based his philsophy on are no longer around.

>because you didn't explain how what i said didn't apply to the modern world!
It's one of those neat little replies you ignored.
These factories employing one hundred workers working on a fucking assembly line do not exist anymore, not in America at least. How the fuck is a corporate enteprise with million upon millions of employs going to work when literally every single one has equal say in it's direction.

It's idiotc. You're an idiot. You will never change mine, or anyone elses mind.

>Kek. Surely it's agasint the rules to gain an unfair competetive advantage.
>It's not like Govt's have laws in place to ensure a safe and competetive landscape in the interest of profit.

Oh yes, totally, it's not like any government has totally supported/allowed capitalism to opress people.
It's not like the government and big business's have the same goals.

On another totally off topic note, anyone find it a bit odd how Ford factorys were throwing out trucks and tanks when all of Germany was supposed to be bombarded to dust?

>99% of the jobs which he based his philsophy on are no longer around.

they are, they've just moved across the sea. they still are mostly performed with wage labor. the relations still apply. i don't know how you can refute this without willful ignorance.

>How the fuck is a corporate enteprise with million upon millions of employs going to work when literally every single one has equal say in it's direction.

this is a fair point. it can be solved with the following thought process: supposing that the workers notice that things are not going as efficiently with the set up of worker democracy, they can elect a select few workers to become representatives for themselves at the administrative level. this would more or less be similar to how the current set up of most businesses is- a few people at the top democratically deciding policy that the people below should follow, except it would be decided to be that way by the workers, and the representatives could be replaced with other workers should the majority of workers working at a corporation believed that a current representative was not performing their job in an adequate way.

it's worker democracy in every fashion, even in the way you decide the company should be ran.

>You will never change mine, or anyone elses mind.

i certainly agree i can't change your mind. but i think i can change the silent majority's mind. the people who are reading this. the only reason i became a communist is because i witnessed a lot of argumentation between capitalists and communists where the communists had better points that matched my self interest more. i was a member of that silent majority once, and now i'm here, doing my duty to advance minds to the side that's most in their interest.

if you would like private property to stay around, fine. just acknowledge for me that its main benefits are given to a select few people, and the majority would be better off with common ownership.

>Oh yes, totally, it's not like any government has totally supported/allowed capitalism to opress people.
Cause America is so oppressed. Just before you get your panties in a knot there is literally no reason except 'good-will' for these highly advanced nations to for some reason bring all these other nations out of the shit. I mean here you sit shitposting on Veeky Forums instead of giving up your time, how can you be so high and mighty?

to answer your question here >You want a brick layer to have a say in a multi-national billion dollar building company?

i want him to have a say if he wants to have a say. he can just as easily say he doesn't want to have anything to do with decision making because he doesn't think he's qualified to do it. that's totally fine. if he wants to have a say though, i don't see why he shouldn't.

Wow.

So yes, you want the menial laberours to be in control of these huge companies.

Kek, how the fuck is a drilling company going to decide where to drill when it has to ask 300,000 employees, when two people want the same job who gets it? who decides? You honestly do not expect one side to back down just because? you're an idiot. Just stop.

>how the fuck is a drilling company going to decide where to drill when it has to ask 300,000 employees, when two people want the same job who gets it? who decides? You honestly do not expect one side to back down just because?

Better yet, how is this company going to compete with a buisness which has one direction? Which changes when the direction starts to fail, not the workers.

Just.
Stop.

Okay?

it's not as if every decision needs to be democratized. i don't need to ask every worker who should turn on the electricity in the morning. in that situation, you'd have the two people deliberate on who would better do the job, or who wants the job more, and it'd be solved between those two people or perhaps a third party if they both stated they wanted it equally and wanted a rock paper scissors to settle it. not every decision needs to be massively democratized. but big decisions? definitely. the people who are affected by big business decisions should absolutely have a say in which way those decisions are handled. it's democracy. i'm sure you like democracy.

you're going to have to elaborate here. what do you mean by 'one direction'? what prevents a worker owned business from 'changing directions' if the direction starts to fail?

>in that situation

in your situation*

>i don't need to ask every worker who should turn on the electricity in the morning
Then who decides that? Who appoints it? What if people disagree on said appointment? Surely with a big enough pool of people there will be disagreements so minor, but they last for so long it causes problems. How does a communist enterprise get over this? It cannot, not in the manner a capitilist one can. And as soon as you introduce a capitalist enterprise the communist one dies because it simply cannot compete, it's set up in a way it cannot. Not the one you want anyway, see how you are started to have inconsistencies in your ideas?
>Worker controlled production
>only some aspects of production

>what prevents a worker owned business from 'changing directions' if the direction starts to fail?
All the workers inside said buissness who don't want it's direction to change? See what you are doing? You are assuming total unity in all things. We have unity in a capitilist socitey becasue there is a identified leader or a board of leaders, who everyone follows or they don't have a job. And you literally, literally just reccommended the use of rock, paper, scissors to dissolve potentially billion dollar disputes. Are you actually trying to be taken seriously?

>Seriously discussing this here with this kind of opening question

for something as minor as turning on the electricity, i really don't think there would be as many complaints as you say there would be. in a hypothetical situation where literally everyone had a different idea on who should do it, sure, you're right it's less efficient. but that hypothetical is so ridiculous that i don't see much reason to put any effort in addressing it- it won't happen.

>see how you are started to have inconsistencies in your ideas?
>>Worker controlled production
>>only some aspects of production

i said that the workers could elect other people to decide decisions for them if they wished to. and i imagine most will want to. there's absolutely no issue with having a central committee for a business if it's something decided democratically by the workers. it's no different than your federal election, and the people who the workers think are best at the top end up at the top. is it going to take longer to figure out who the central committee is going to be because you're asking more people? yeah, absolutely. is that a bad thing if the result if something that satisfies most of the workers? absolutely not.

>All the workers inside said buissness who don't want it's direction to change?

decisions will be decided based on a majority opinion. if it's true that a direction is failing to efficiently create products of services, but some section of the workforce believes that staying on the direction is still valid, the amount of people who would wish to change directions would overpower the minority that wants to stick with it. again, democracy.

>And you literally, literally just reccommended the use of rock, paper, scissors to dissolve potentially billion dollar disputes.

this obviously wouldn't be the case for bigger issues. i'm assuming the two people arguing are of similar skill level at the supposed job they're arguing to do so it's not such a big deal who does it. if it's true that there's someone blatantly better, choose them.

>i don't need to ask every worker who should turn on the electricity in the morning.
But in your world where the workers control the production they literally have to.

Someone working on the corporate side of the buissness assigns someone to swtich on/off lights. The decsion is made and the worker does it.

Who does this in a communist society where everyone is equal? Evidently it's not possible, it's not universally applicable.

>products of services

products or services*
i'm making too many typos here.

right, workers DO control the means of production, but HOW they do it is completely up to them, so long as it doesn't degenerate back into private property rights, which it won't, because workers would not return to a form of productive relations that are blatantly against their self interest.

again, since workers can decide HOW they want to control production, they can just as easily say 'it doesn't really matter who turns on the lights, just whoever gets here first should do it' and be done with it. it's not a hard decision. it doesn't take more than a fucking second of deliberation, because it's such a miniscule task.

i'm making the claim that just because all workers are treated equally in authority within a corporation does NOT mean that they'll spend hours deliberating who is turning on the lights, because it's not the sort of decision people will deliberate on for hours. it's something that has such a no brainer response that there's no reason to assume this scenario you're so insistent would occur would actually occur.

i turn on the fucking lights when i'm first one in the workplace, and i wasn't asked to do it. i turn them on because it's the nice thing to do for my fellow workers, and i'd rather not work in the dark.

>central committee for a business if it's something decided democratically by the workers
Then you literally have exactly what you have now exept those people probably also do menial work, and they now have to do MORE work, probably wont get paid more as everyone who runs the factory deserves the same?

>it won't happen.
Come now, you are implying a philsophy which if adopted will cover billions upon billions of people. THere will be minor disputes all the time. Pretty much the exact amount which happens now, maybe more, maybe less, except you take out the voice who is designated to take care of these disputes.

>again, democracy.
What's stopping these disgruntled workers from taking over the factory, like they did before? You understand democracy is inherintley broken when the population size is massive? You are still missing the point that all this takes time. How loing is it going to take for a company to make a major decision (what if time is of the up most importance and is make or break (no time to ask the whoel company))

>i'm assuming the two people arguing are of similar skill level at the supposed job they're arguing to do so it's not such a big deal who does it.
Purely subjective they both want to do it and are both as skilled as each other.

No one can make that decision in an equal society. Not fairly anyway, like you are saying you can.

What happens if they change direction at the case of a vote and then the company does fail and EVERYONE even those who voted against are out of a job? You see there is really no 'greater good' there is on an individuals need.

Your system is broken, keep bring up examples and i will shut it down every time. But make it quick, I am actually leaving soon.

>just whoever gets here first should do it' and be done with it. it's not a hard decision. it doesn't take more than a fucking second of deliberation, because it's such a miniscule task.
You understand though thhats literally exactly the fucking point. It requires huge deliberation to get to an agreement for something so small. It's inherintly broken, how can you not see it?

They WILL have to at some point make a decision, either ONE person will make it meaning this man is vulnerable to corruption but thats another issue. Or EVERYONE makes it. And this is still assuming the fact that someone is going to stick their hand up to do more menial labor for literally no reason. No incentive.

>probably wont get paid more as everyone who runs the factory deserves the same?

a basic misunderstanding of communism is that everyone working receives the same compensation. not true. some people will do more work, or more valuable work. they'll be compensated accordingly.

>THere will be minor disputes all the time. Pretty much the exact amount which happens now, maybe more, maybe less, except you take out the voice who is designated to take care of these disputes.

yeah, i don't deny that. i would expect minor disputes to be solved by the relevant parties without having to refer to everyone else's opinion on the matter, because those disputes are minor, as stated. major disputes should obviously be held to referendum. minor disputes like who turns the lights on should not, because who does so is so inconsequential. it's such an easy goddamn job. you flip a switch.

>What's stopping these disgruntled workers from taking over the factory, like they did before?

well, assuming that there's more people who disagree with those disgruntled workers than those who do agree, they'd get squashed if they tried to take over. pretty logical.

>You understand democracy is inherintley broken when the population size is massive?

it's not broken, you just have more people to refer to. it means that deliberating will take longer, but that's not a bad thing so long as the primary reason we like democracy- everyone gets their say- is still answered.

>How long is it going to take for a company to make a major decision (what if time is of the up most importance and is make or break (no time to ask the whole company))

then some workers will have to make a snap decision without asking everyone else. if the other workers are explained that the situation required expedient timing, they could then deliberate after the decision that needed to be made quickly would occur as to whether that was the right choice to make or not, and plan better in the future.

cont.

>i would expect minor disputes to be solved by the relevant parties without having to refer to everyone else's opinion on the matter
How can you assume anything when we are talking about a whole planets worth of people here?

>well, assuming that there's more people who disagree with those disgruntled workers than those who do agree, they'd get squashed if they tried to take over. pretty logical.
So? they are completley within YOUR rights to take over their factory, they were unhappy with its direction, and their treatment therefore they should be allowed to take it over?

>but that's not a bad thing
It's a fatal problem when talking about buissness and it's competetive landscape.

>then some workers will have to make a snap decision without asking everyone else. if the other workers are explained that the situation required expedient timing, they could then deliberate after the decision that needed to be made quickly would occur as to whether that was the right choice to make or not, and plan better in the future.
lol. We are talking about billions and billions of dollors which essentially no one is taking responsibility for. You understand just how wrong that can go?

>What happens if they change direction at the case of a vote and then the company does fail and EVERYONE even those who voted against are out of a job?

i mean that's obviously one of the possibilities of democracy. i'd rather i had the choice to begin with to decide on the direction of the company than be at the whim of unquestionable central planning administrators under capitalism. i can just as easily say "what if a country voted in a dictator into office but the people who voted no still have to suffer under him!!!" obviously it's an unfortunate scenario but you don't get to say 'democracy should be removed!' just because something unfavorable to you happened. it's still a good system because it takes into account everyone's opinions, better than totalitarianism or tyranny in the workplace now.

>It requires huge deliberation to get to an agreement for something so small.

you can keep claiming this for as long as you would like, but we both know it's not true. we both know it won't take an eternity to assign something so basic. there will not need to be a deliberation on every decision because not every decision is worth deliberating. some decisions will be so easy. if someone has an issue with a decision later, they can obviously voice their concern and have it addressed. not an issue.

>And this is still assuming the fact that someone is going to stick their hand up to do more menial labor for literally no reason. No incentive.

if it's true that menial labor is so undesirable that no one wants to do it, you have to provide greater compensation for it. pretty basic.

>i mean that's obviously one of the possibilities of democracy.
Yes, and the owner of the company takes responsibility.

>we both know it won't take an eternity to assign something so basic.
Literally wrong though. There is more to buissness than just profit, which is all you want in this world.

>you have to provide greater compensation for it
So now you will be building towards a system where the shit movers get more than the actual intellectuals which are making everything happen.

>it's still a good system because it takes into account everyone's opinions, better than totalitarianism or tyranny in the workplace now.

Your system is utter shite, and I am a communist. Communist to exist NEEDS capitlisim, this is something people like you do not understand. Capitalisim will be used by communisim in order for communisim to take over, this will be a policital ideology though, not a fucking economical one which you think will somehow end well.

Everything you have said is a literal shit show and buissnessmens worst nightmare.

>How can you assume anything when we are talking about a whole planets worth of people here?

i won't debate that there will be some obviously unreasonable people who say "Hey, shouldn't we have a referendum on who should turn on the lights!" maybe you're one of those people. we might just remove you if you're too much of an annoyance with these constant claims that we need to deliberate over everything, especially if we all know that constant deliberation is going to cut into product creation efficiency.

>So? they are completley within YOUR rights to take over their factory, they were unhappy with its direction, and their treatment therefore they should be allowed to take it over?

well, i don't really believe in the concept of rights, but that's another issue, i suppose. it's well within their ability to try to launch some sort of coup against the rest of the workers, but i'm saying they'll be squashed assuming it's not a majority group. if the coup makers are a majority coup, then they'll win. it's as simple as that. whether i think their action is 'right' or not doesn't matter- they believe they're justified anyway, and they'll act whether i say they're morally correct or not.

>It's a fatal problem when talking about buissness and it's competetive landscape.

communist society will not be competitive. it will be cooperative. companies in the same industry will freely exchange information on how to more efficiently create goods so that everyone around the world can enjoy the benefits of technological discovery, rather than holding it to one company to make a profit.

>We are talking about billions and billions of dollors which essentially no one is taking responsibility for.
>essentially no one

no, the people who made the decision will take the blame. if you do not have time to talk to everyone, those who make the decision that ends negatively are the ones to blame.

>Yes, and the owner of the company takes responsibility.
no matter how much responsibility the owner takes, i won't get my job back. being able to have some sort of say in the decision that could or could not take away my job is objectively more in my self interest than allowing a select few administrators to decide. you cannot refute this.

>Literally wrong though. There is more to buissness than just profit, which is all you want in this world.
you didn't demonstrate why i'm 'literally wrong'. you just made a statement. you provided no logic. there IS more to business than just profit, i agree. that's why i'm interested in changing how business works.

>So now you will be building towards a system where the shit movers get more than the actual intellectuals which are making everything happen.

currently, the shit movers end up in shit jobs because their material conditions force them to do so- eg, a poor mexican is going to work the farm because they don't have access to education necessary to become skilled at more intellectual or desirable work. under communism, everyone's going to have some access to a reasonable level of education. assuming we have no automation of shit jobs yet, then yes, some one is going to have to do them, and the incentive might include being paid a little higher than the average job. it's not necessarily true that the shit mover will be paid higher than the doctor. it might be, depending on just how undesirable this work is. i wouldn't know.

>Communist to exist NEEDS capitlisim, this is something people like you do not understand.
i totally understand this. this is basic theory. i don't disagree. we've been discussing how workplaces would work under communism, not the conditions necessary for communism to come about.

>this will be a policital ideology though, not a fucking economical one
wrong. it's both. how do you not know that it's both, if you're supposedly a communist?

i'd like to state something though- all this deliberating we're doing is going to be useless in a majority of industries, since by the time communism ever occurs a sizable amount of automation would have taken place in many industries. this whole hypothetical we've been arguing the whole time isn't going to be a likely representative of communist society, since most jobs will be automated. it may or may not apply on the remaining industries that still require human labor- it obviously depends on a case by case basis on how laborers organize themselves.

What? Are you implying that your social conditions DOES determinate how rich can you be?
Ridoculous!

making a business is the easy part
it's sustaining it that's hard