let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

  • Return to Debate Index
  • Capitalism is Opposed to Human Happiness Debate, Volume 2

    A Debate with
    the community of PoliticsForum.org

    Part #21

    Posts #101-#105

    By Flats!
    Image: By Flats!, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

    Post #101

    Date: Fri 06 Aug 2010
    CNF-FAI Radical, your post has nothing to do with my numerical example. Why quote my post (in full!) if your reply has nothing to do with it?

    Post #102

    Punkerslut (using the alias CNT-FAI Radical)...
    Date: Sat 07 Aug 2010
    lucky wrote:
    CNF-FAI Radical, your post has nothing to do with my numerical example. Why quote my post (in full!) if your reply has nothing to do with it?

    Well, let's see....

    lucky wrote:
    In your system, there is no point expanding the scope. Instead of $2million/2 = $1 million per person, they would be getting $4 millon / 10 = $400K. Each new hire would also have to get $400K.

    CNT-FAI Radical wrote:
    ...taking on new workers does not necessarily entail equal pay. It may occur in some places, but it is not likely to occur in all. Since every worker is dependent upon their means of production, they have a self-interest in maintaining its productivity capability. This is so because they depend upon the exchange value they expect to generate that will sustain themselves, their families, and their communities. They compete with other firms, which means they will need a fair system for redistribution of wealth -- otherwise, there is incentive for the overly productive or inventive worker to find another cooperative.

    I think that has "something to do with it." Or was I supposed to quote financial reports from this imaginary company in your head?

    Post #103

    Date: Sat 07 Aug 2010
    ^ I assumed equal skills and equal family situation, for simplicity, hence equal shares. I strive for the simplest example to present the core problem so that it's simple to understand. That the details of a real scenario could be more complex doesn't fix the underlying issue.

    Post #104

    Date: Sat 07 Aug 2010
    Lucky, in a world of worker's cooperatives, negotiations don't disappear, they simply occur between cooperatives rather than between individuals. So in your example, one cooperative creates a means of production, and can negotiate for additional labor from another cooperative: Say 10 workers from the other cooperative take on the task for 400K -- other workers in that cooperative would have to take up the slack of the usual work left by these 10. Therefore the entire cooperative shares the 400K. The main point being that the workers now bargain collectively (as a collective) and therefore more effectively than if they were bargaining as completing individuals. However, there's still competition between cooperative (unless the workers form a world-wide collective).

    Would that answer your question?

    Post #105

    Date: Sat 07 Aug 2010
    ^ I didn't ask a question.

    I don't think that's how CNT-FAI Radical's idea works. In his world, workers who work on the capital automatically become part of the "cooperative" and get a share in the profits generated by that capital. Negotiations where I buy labor for a set payment would be, I imagine, illegal.

    Going with your idea of negotiating independent cooperatives, including the possibility of buying labor, that's perfectly fine. It's the current capitalist situation! You have companies, partnerships, and individuals who are "single person cooperatives", negotiating terms with each other. If you want to start a multi-person "cooperative" (or in more modern terms, a partnership), there are no laws in capitalist countries to stop that. In fact, it's a common arrangement.

    join the punkerslut.com
    mailing list!

    copyleft notice and
    responsibility disclaimer