How best to manage the means of production - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14602732
It seems to be a universal tenant of socialism that the economy/means of production, must somehow be owned socially (under the control of the people/workers/proletariat etc.). Different individuals seem to take the phrase "socially owned" to mean different things, to more authoritarian varieties of socialism "socially owned" can simply mean a despotic state and on the other end of the spectrum "socially owned" can mean an anarchic commune. I would like to ask the question, which is the most effective way of "socially owning" the means of production? Not what is the most moral or utopian way, but which socialist method is the most effective in an economic sense and in the sense of successfully distributing goods and services?


P.S "Capitalism" is not a valid answer
Last edited by Left Behind on 23 Sep 2015 09:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14602734
I always think people make way too much of it. Capitalism does not make for a great economy. That's the problem. Capitalism is predicated on selling people things they don't need, not creating an effective economy; and that would be an economy that can be built sustainably, that allows everyone free time, that works towards modernizing, building more infrastructure, community projects, finding families housing, providing healthcare... There are problems in the world that are not being fixed. We need more planning, more industrial plans, more infrastructure plans, more healthcare plans, more taxes on those that can afford it (this should continue until necessary under socialism, eventually money will not be a problem), proper apportionment of our material resources, etc.
#14602736
kobe wrote:I always think people make way too much of it. Capitalism does not make for a great economy. That's the problem. Capitalism is predicated on selling people things they don't need, not creating an effective economy; and that would be an economy that can be built sustainably, that allows everyone free time, that works towards modernizing, building more infrastructure, community projects, finding families housing, providing healthcare... There are problems in the world that are not being fixed. We need more planning, more industrial plans, more infrastructure plans, more healthcare plans, more taxes on those that can afford it (this should continue until necessary under socialism, eventually money will not be a problem), proper apportionment of our material resources, etc.


Who do you think should be placed in charge of managing the plans etc. The state or another body.

I agree with you regarding capitalism, but what is the best way of managing a social economy?
#14602739
Who do you think should be placed in charge of managing the plans etc. The state or another body.


Independant private managers under close supervision of the public power. If they screw up things, you don't offer them another chance and few millions bonus, you recycle them to harvest organs and meat.
#14602740
Left Behind wrote:It seems to be a universal tenant of socialism that the economy/means of production, must somehow be owned socially (under the control of the people/workers/proletariat etc.). Different individuals seem to take the phrase "socially owned" to mean different things, to more authoritarian varieties of socialism "socially owned" can simply mean a despotic state and on the other end of the spectrum "socially owned" can mean an anarchic commune. I would like to ask the question, which is the most effective way of "socially owning" the means of production? Not what is the most moral or utopian way, but which method is the most effective in an economic sense and in the sense of successfully distributing goods and services?


P.S "Capitalism" is not a valid answer


Economists know that the answer to your question is always "it depends". My kingdom for a one-armed economist.

Economists also know that there is no answer because every answer entails costs. No matter the advocate's preference in an economic system, he is merely saying that he likes the system's benefits and is willing to tolerate its downsides.

Capitalism, defined as "private ownership in competition" has undoubted benefits, but well-known costs as well. Consider, as Edward Glaeser does in his book Triumph of the City, that capitalism gets it mostly right while supplying cities with the myriad goods and services it needs. Nobody is controlling the thousands of suppliers, small and large, who feed the city every day. There is slippage, and inefficiency, and even occasional violence, but the biggest of cities is reliably supplied each and every day. Some of the suppliers are ruthless, heartless people who care little about their workers or their customers except as sheep to be sheared, and whose social instincts are nonexistent. Still, their actions produce what the city needs. No central authority could possibly do the job better.

Extending this backward into production, again we find capitalism's inefficiencies as firms compete and duplicate efforts, but out of that messy maelstrom comes (for the most part) things the society at large needs to consume. Again, there are doubtless externalities (outcomes that the company itself doesn't have to pay for, but others do), and we have agreed as a capitalist society to put fences in place to prevent the most egregious of them, then pay for the maintenance of the fences and the political arguments that arise over them. All of these are costs.

Really, I think there are two things here that you're conflating. The first is the efficiency of outcome to the society, which is generally agreed to be some form of competitive capitalism, and the other is who owns those suppliers. There are many examples of worker-owned companies and even government-owned companies that have succeeded in a capitalist structure. My favorite is the Green Bay Packers, a community-owned NFL team that has had enormous success both financially and on the field.

Other countries, notably Nordic ones, may shift the costs and benefits around a bit, but for the most part capitalism, the way I'm defining it here, seems to be the best method of getting things to those who want them, while battling many difficulties (some of which we're asked to battle). Nations that have opted for centralized control did so out of a legitimate concern for fairness and scarcity, but ultimately they fail to do as good a job. That's not to say that capitalism is a panacea. Many countries have capitalism but allow substantial segments of their populations to fall into terrible poverty. The best system seems to be a government shepherding of squabbling companies, something that requires delicate handling.
#14602746
Left Behind wrote:Who do you think should be placed in charge of managing the plans etc. The state or another body.

I agree with you regarding capitalism, but what is the best way of managing a social economy?

The state of course, under socialism. The paradoxical part is that once we eliminate class, we must also eliminate state. So eventually the answer is not the state. I am fairly confident that we can still continue to have corporations, but they will be co-ops. Further many of the things that make sense for the state to control regardless. Plus we would make it a priority to develop renewable energy sources and bring food to every person on the planet. Because this socialism thing would have to be global, in my opinion.

For certain I know it would not be an anarchy or libertarian utopia. There would be many problems. However I think war would be eliminated. The last thing to eliminate would be class, but I personally have no clue how we'll do that eventually. I don't think we're there yet, technologically or intellectually, and I mean that more in terms of the general populace and how astoundingly stupid we all are. With education, which I think will be a large part of this equation, that will get better.
#14602762
Worker-controlled and -owned enterprises. To be most effective they would have to be units of less than 250 people. This is about the maximum size direct democracy is able to work. Larger structures tend to devolve quickly into typical oppressive hierarchies. These mini-corporations (you can call them cooperatives if you like) would vote their own managers, decide all salaries and working conditions, and distribute profits among themselves. Lower and higher end salary caps, as well as percentage ranges for managers and workers would be established. 95% of distributed profits must go to workers on an equal basis, with 5% reserved for manager bonuses. They would collectively decide production goals and formulate a marketing strategy to the public. No one not employed would be permitted to profit from its gains, nor would it be permitted to sell shares or give them to workers. Profits will be distributed directly to employees without the creation of pernicious financial instruments like "shares." Employees who quit or are fired would retain no right to company profits. Training for in-house managers would be provided free by local community colleges, and subsidized by the government. Hiring outside managers would not be allowed.

These entities would have access to direct financing from the government in the form of no-interest loans with delayed payment schedule, as well as start-up financing with advice on business plan formulation for new enterprises. These businesses wold operate within a market environment, but one strictly controlled to benefit society as a whole. Social goals would always take precedence over efficiency in the design of this system.

Government contracts would only be awarded to these types of corporations.

These worked-owned businesses would not be subject to corporate taxes, only individual taxes of their members.

Where efficiency or demands of scale require businesses larger than the 250 person limit, a more direct government control will be required. Professional managers will be permitted, but they will be employed directly by the government and subject to regulatory review. The large corporations will be broken down into smaller units based on the worker-owned model and coordinated by professional management. There will be a defined process for democratic removal of managers deemed unsuitable by workers.

Utilities such as banking, electrical generation, water, etc would be owned and operated exclusively by the government. Likewise industries with a significant public safety risk such as airlines and oil exploration.
#14603046
quetzalcoatl wrote:Worker-controlled and -owned enterprises. To be most effective they would have to be units of less than 250 people. This is about the maximum size direct democracy is able to work. Larger structures tend to devolve quickly into typical oppressive hierarchies. These mini-corporations (you can call them cooperatives if you like) would vote their own managers, decide all salaries and working conditions, and distribute profits among themselves.


I like the premise, but i'm not sure about workers being able to efficiently run a company. Take for example, a mine, the individual mine workers may be experts at their individual jobs and collectively would be able to make use of each others skills, but in terms of planning an overall/long term company strategy it seems like they would lack the relevant training or ability. If this is the case, then for an efficient cooperative business, some kind of director (or group of directors), with experience in the sector, would have to be hired (or elected) to plan and coordinate long term strategy. The only alternative to bringing in such an individual would be to provide the miners with training in the area.
#14603221
Left Behind wrote:...in terms of planning an overall/long term company strategy it seems like they would lack the relevant training or ability. If this is the case, then for an efficient cooperative business, some kind of director (or group of directors), with experience in the sector, would have to be hired (or elected) to plan and coordinate long term strategy. The only alternative to bringing in such an individual would be to provide the miners with training in the area.


Certainly training would come into play, but people vastly overestimate the role of expertise and experience in the role of managers. For mid-level managers, basic notions of psychology we absorb from childhood are more important than an MBA. For typical CEOs in the current environment, the crucial features are a controlled sociopathy and ruthless drive.

The reason it is so important to have worked-owned enterprise with in-house management is to absolutely short-circuit the separation of the workforce into labor and owner classes. Workers would have to make strategic decisions knowing that they will bear the ultimate responsibility. "Should I postpone this wage demand?" is an entirely different question when you are both owner and worker, and introduces a beneficial incentive for mature and long-term decision making.
#14603230
Nationalized strategic sectors (energy, finance, communications, transportation, heavy industry and big companies). Worker's cooperatives for the rest of the economy. There's very little reason for the State to actually bother running most small businesses directly. As long as they're not providing income to subversive class enemies, small companies aren't all that important.

It goes without saying that all the social services should remain fully public.
#14603257
Left Behind wrote:I would like to ask the question, which is the most effective way of "socially owning" the means of production? Not what is the most moral or utopian way, but which socialist method is the most effective in an economic sense and in the sense of successfully distributing goods and services? - P.S "Capitalism" is not a valid answer
I like the idea of democratic co-ops ... it maintains motivational factors while assuring serious consideration of available alternatives, without the distraction of profit orientation.

Credit Unions serve as a primary example ... A few years back they were putting the banks out of business and incited a determined political assault on themselves (settled by a coercive compromise). Why can't we have Insurance Co-ops ? Transportation/Travel Co-ops ? Energy Co-ops rather than public utilities ? Where I live we have an electrical co-op that reduces rates by 30% or more and returns dividends to members every year. + we already have decades of experience with the co-op system.

Zam
#14603323
Left Behind wrote:P.S "Capitalism" is not a valid answer
Never expect capitalists to play by the rules ...
Angelamerkel wrote:The best way to manage the means of production is by private ownership or by publicly traded stock corporations, partnerships, etc.
#14603380
I think on federations of cooperatives. Not centralized production, that's almost the same than alienating cappitalist production.
A way in wich the workers are directly related to their work, is maybe not something we can solve from theorical discussion.
Theres already experience throug all latin america and the world, of socialist cooperatives, so we could find out what has function better for them.

Also, i would like to add, that centralized production, means also centralized political power. I think a centralized production is a lot easies to be infiltrated and destroyed, like USSR.
#14603410
There are problems associated with small companies owned by employees, which is why so many have professional managers. If you've never had to manage a company, you may think it's fairly easy, but it's not. There are intricacies in accounting, finance, regulations, marketing, sales, and other matters that ordinary workers never glimpse. There are also advantages to large size that shouldn't be ignored, especially in some industries where consolidation is the rule. It's not workable to make a blanket statement about the best and most competitive ownership models. It varies too much by industry and other conditions. Today the only small-company model that's truly competitive is artisanal or boutique shops, places that can specialize and charge more for those specialties. And even here, if the company grows large enough to be noticed, it'll be be bought.

Co-ops actually provide a good example, as do mutual insurance companies. Co-ops are, almost without exception, small and run by professional businessfolk. Mutual insurance companies are theoretically owned by policyholders, but in reality are controlled by their executives. One of my favorite examples, the Green Bay Packers, is owned by the city and its residents, but managed by real football people. It's had good success, but so have the Patriots, owned by a capitalist.
#14603422
It simply depends on the situation. Lenin, for example, had a giant country of illiterate peasants getting perpetually attacked by all the great countries on Earth. That's going to look different than the Paris Commune.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]