[Le Rouge]

While socialism can include autogestion, autogestion-in-itself originates in left-wing Peronism. And no one would say left-wing Peronism and socialism are identical (even if they are similar).

[Wolfman]

Peron took power in 1943, and the first major application of Autogestion was in the Spanish Civil War. Autogestion comes from Proudhon and Mutualism

[TropicalK]

Wolfman, what is your definition of capitalism?

According to Wikipedia

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which trade, industry and the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled (either singly or jointly) and operated for a profit[1][2]

It seems to me that autogestion easily falls under capitalism.
trade check
profit check
privately controlled check, owned by workers and not by the public

[Wolfman]

I'm not going to dignify your posts with a response. Every time you say something to me it's either with something I said taken massivly out of context, or is simply niave in it's attempt to discredit me.

[Figlio di Moros]

I'm not going to dignify your posts with a response. Every time you say something to me it's either with something I said taken massivly out of context, or is simply niave in it's attempt to discredit me.

So, basically, you can't explain how autogestion isn't capitalist?

[Wolfman]

No, that baffon it's worth my time. If you would like, I'd explain it to you.

[Figlio di Moros]

No, that baffon it's worth my time. If you would like, I'd explain it to you.

Aight...

[Wolfman]

I'm going to ignore that using a primary source like Wikipedia (or using wikipedia in general) is generally a no-no, and go with what TK used.

Trade: Continues to exist but in a different way then under capitalism. Under Capitalism trade effecitivly takes place between a few people. If you worked on the line at a factory, you would have no say in what the company does. Whereas in an Autogestive company all the workers would have a say whats going on, not nessicarily directly (any model of democracy, etc, can be used).

Profit: No duh. However, the method of profit changes. Because there are no 'owners' and no 'workers' in the traditional sense, the income disparity is drasticly changed. This means that the majority of workers in any WRC is going to have a higher chance of being in what would be called the 'middle class'. So, while profit remains, the method of attaining profit is vary different. It's not about how high up you are in the company, it's about how much you actually work (things like education level, rank, or years of experience affect pay rate, but the major reason for getting a pay raise would the actual value to the company).

Privately controlled: You'd have to have a loose definition of just what constitutes 'privates'. If you define 'private' as not being controlled by the whole country, then yes, Autogestion is based on 'private' ownership of the means of production. If you believe that 'private' means about 1% of the workers (including a board of directors, etc), then no, it is not private control.

If you have anything else, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

[The Clockwork Rat]

TCR, Anarchist Spain and Titoist Yugoslavia are both good examples [of successful autogestion]. Although this is taking the thread too far off track.

I don't know what TCR is and the other two no longer exist. That last part seems to support the argument against.

[Wolfman]

TCR = TheClockworkRat

Anarchist Spain lost the Revolution because of Military, not economic conditions. Titoism isn't exactly Autogestion (closer to Parecon, which I don't like very much).

[The Clockwork Rat]

Oh. I'll try to remember TCR from now on.

Would the structure (or lack of) of anarchist Spain necessarily work in the modern world? I doubt we'll ever find out.

[Wolfman]

We probably wont find out. However, Autogestion is a hard subject to grasp because of the huge number of theories and people who have theorised. At the moment, I'm focusing on the various theories, then I'm going to work into more specifics. So, I don't have a very good understanding of Anarchist Spain.

[HoniSoit]

I don't want to be insulting or anything. But Wolfman - you seem extremely confused. The things you put forward is a strange mixture - and often either incoherent or internally inconsistent one at that - of worker-run cooperative, market socialism and a misunderstanding of what socialism is (i.e. socialism does not necessarily mean state ownership at all). How you put together Spain and Yugoslavia as your examples is also curious. Pardon my ignorance. But I fail to see how they share any meaningful and significant similarities.

[Wolfman]

The things you put forward is a strange mixture - and often either incoherent or internally inconsistent one at that - of worker-run cooperative, market socialism and a misunderstanding of what socialism is

I understand where the Market Socialism could be coming from (the majority of my social policies), but not my misunderstanding of Socialism. I haven't claimed to be a Socialist in over a year, as I've largely started my own movement. I don't nessicarily deny that I'm Socialist, but I don't claim to be one, and I'm not sure how that has relevence.

How you put together Spain and Yugoslavia as your examples is also curious.

Yugoslavia under Tito has a semi-worker run economy. The majority of companies were directed by the government, but the workers actually administated the company. During the Spainish Revolution the Anarchists used Autogestion for there companies. They're the only examples of a large scale cooperative economy, so it's what I give people when they ask for a large scale example. I don't nessiracly support either model, but it's all that one could really go on.

[PredatorOC]

Whereas in an Autogestive company all the workers would have a say whats going on, not nessicarily directly (any model of democracy, etc, can be used).

In other words, you don't precisely know how it would work. Which seems to be a repeating theme among most lefties who insist on rationalizing economic theories around their moral beliefs.

So, while profit remains, the method of attaining profit is vary different. It's not about how high up you are in the company, it's about how much you actually work (things like education level, rank, or years of experience affect pay rate, but the major reason for getting a pay raise would the actual value to the company).

This is going to cause huge problems in the form of capital stagnation. Those evil capitalists/owners provide an important service by accumulating and moving capital to profitable businesses. Once that mechanism is removed, you are going to run into a lot of trouble. Economic growth will be lessened or even stop as presumably you can't invest accumulated capital into new businesses or at the least such investment isn't tempting since laws will favour worker-owned companies. Starting a new business will be problematic since you can't bring in employees (lest you become an evil capitalist) and thus have to find people who can invest similar amounts of capital and have a similar interest in the new business.

Then you have a problem with existing businesses. As has been shown time and again, workers aren't keen on shutting down their workplace. Which is why governments today prop up numerous zombie businesses that only exist to appease labour unions. So worker-owned companies would tend to make horrendous choices when it came time to evaluate whether or not a business should be shut down.

In the end, the problem with this autogestive interpretation of economic theory is that it assumes a static model for the economy. That once you take over an economy and its businesses, nothing will ever change. Resources won't diminish, consumer preferences won't change, new technologies won't be invented. And that is why it will fail.

[Wolfman]

There's a rule against Necro-Posting. I think you forgot that.

In other words, you don't precisely know how it would work.

Actually, yes I do. There are literally millions of possible combinations of Democracy depending on the method of voting, ballot used, method of selection, structure of governing body, and so on. Which makes it pretty much impossible to give a definite example of how every company will work, unless you wanted to discuss a specific example.

Which seems to be a repeating theme among most lefties who insist on rationalizing economic theories around their moral beliefs.

Please show me where I used any form of moral argument in this thread.

Those evil capitalists/owners provide an important service by accumulating and moving capital to profitable businesses.

Thank you for putting more words in my mouth. At no point have I said anything about evil capitalists. I'm an Autogestionist for economic reasons, not moral ones. That aside, it remains possible to start a new company under an Autogestive Economy.

Economic growth will be lessened or even stop

Lessened growth, but there would be virtually no recessions.Autogestive Economies are much more stable.

as presumably you can't invest accumulated capital into new businesses or at the least such investment isn't tempting since laws will favour worker-owned companies.

You should try reading up on how an economic theory works before you critize it. In the case of people who want to create a national Autogestionive Economy, most want to maintain TRCs in the case of new companies. Lets say the total start up cost for an company is $500,000. That includes your investment, a bank loan, and investment from private individuals. After you had paid off your loan and interest, paid off your private creidtors, you can keep a total of (arbitatry value) 10% of the intial investment, then the company becomes worker run. Meaning you would make $50,000 after you repaid yourself. Most people who want to create an Autogestive Economy have different methods of dealing with initial owners. A good chunk like the idea off the British Monarchy. You maintain a symbolic position, but have little real power, and make a salary based off the income of the workers (2-4 times the income of the highest wage of the line worker being a common payment)

(lest you become an evil capitalist)

Seriously, please stop putting words in my mouth.

workers aren't keen on shutting down their workplace.

Which is actually why most Autgoestive Companies start up.

So worker-owned companies would tend to make horrendous choices when it came time to evaluate whether or not a business should be shut down.

First, you assumes that worker run companies are in a market that is subject to a lot of booms and busts. This isn't true. Second, you assumes that the workers would be directly in charge of the company.

In the end, the problem with this autogestive interpretation of economic theory is that it assumes a static model for the economy. That once you take over an economy and its businesses, nothing will ever change. Resources won't diminish, consumer preferences won't change, new technologies won't be invented. And that is why it will fail.

Try that again please. I've already dealt with alot of the claims you made in this statement

[Vera Politica]

There's a rule against Necro-Posting. I think you forgot that.

Necroposting is a very relative issue. Usually, if the thread is still on the first page, it is fine. Given that this is not an active sub-forum, this general rule wouldn't apply universally. He posted only after a month of inactivity - that is quite alright.

[Wolfman]

I was under the impression that the rule of thumb was that necro posting is posting after a month of inactivity.

[Vera Politica]

A necro-post is a new reply posted to an old inactive topic. The word necro means corpse and as such the act of necro-posting is replying to "dead" topics.

How old a topic has to be before it is considered necro-posting to reply to it depends on how busy the forum is. Generally speaking if a topic is still on the first page of the forums topic listing then it is acceptable to reply to it. If in doubt just read the date of the last post to the topic, if it is from 2003 then you shouldn't be hitting that submit button.

Necro-posting is generally frowned upon for the following reasons:

* It is confusing for other users when topics from years gone by re-appear.
* Frequently (especially on a political forum) the topic is out-of-date.
* The fact that the topic has been left for so long can indicate that it has been debated to death.
* An old topic with few replies may have already been debated to death elsewhere (use the search feature to check!).
* Dragging up old topics pushes current relevant topics further down the forum's topic listing.

[PredatorOC]

There's a rule against Necro-Posting. I think you forgot that.

I'm pretty sure this topic was in the top 5 of the socialism forum when I posted, which in my mind makes it fair game.

There are literally millions of possible combinations of Democracy depending on the method of voting, ballot used, method of selection, structure of governing body, and so on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but autogestion advocates often also want to hinder the operation of private companies or outright ban them. This means you have to regulate how companies can be organized. I want to know what those regulations are and saying "it must be owned by workers" isn't good enough. For example, must the company be owned equally by all workers, or can one worker own 51% of the shares?

there would be virtually no recessions.Autogestive Economies are much more stable.

Based on what?

most want to maintain TRCs in the case of new companies

What is a TRC?

Which is actually why most Autgoestive Companies start up.

My point exactly. I don't see the rationality in maintaining businesses that are not viable.

Second, you assumes that the workers would be directly in charge of the company.

I assumes no such thing. But a business manager can't overrule the will of the owners/workers and shut down the business. And autogestion seems to hinge on the very idea that businesses shouldn't be shut down (see the above comment).

So an autogestive economy would have a lot of workers who were financially ruined by trying to maintain failing businesses. Which brings me to another question: how does a person with no capital and no way to guarantee a loan get ahead in life? Do they become beggars because they can't be employed in an autogestive economy?