[ClumsyPilot]

> Can we leave the cynical antiwork comments out? They aren't helpful. This is obviously not the case for a majority of companies and anecdotes don't help.

Major companies are regularly prosecuted for conspiracy to suppress wages. It if weren't for government intervention your wages would be much lower and there wouldn't be anything you can do about it.

This blind faith that billion dollar corporations would behave ethically is highly inappropriate

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo...

[lupusreal]

Most companies aren't "major companies". I'm for busting up the big monopolies, but I'm not for throwing the baby out with the bath water and imposing communist reforms on all businesses, most of which are small and generally well behaved, just because some big ones with pathological behavior exist.

[kerkeslager]

So if you acknowledge that pathological behaviors exist, what's the problem with regulating against those pathological behaviors? Given you seem to think most companies are small and well-behaved, it won't affect those companies.

[tracker1]

Regulation only shifts corruption, it doesn't stop or prevent it. There is plenty of corruption in and around government including the judicial system.

[kerkeslager]

> Regulation only shifts corruption, it doesn't stop or prevent it.

This is so obviously, trivially false, I doubt even you believe it.

Should we remove the prohibition on murder?

[tracker1]

So you don't believe that murder happens?

[kerkeslager]

Obviously murder happens.

Does regulation only shift murder, not stop or prevent it?

[lupusreal]

I support regulating businesses and never suggested otherwise!

[kerkeslager]

Well, you went straight to bringing up communism at the first hint of criticizing businesses, so...

[specialist]

There's A LOT of daylight between liberal capitalism and communist socialism.

The social democracies, a middle path, as the Nordic countries have experimented with, seem to have done quite well. And there's now strong evidence that our system (neoliberalism) has stunted economic growth.

Regardless...

I support simple social reforms, like sovereign wealth funds (Alaska, Norway) and universal healthcare, greatly reducing the tension between labor and capital. Then these labor, employment, and ownership reforms wouldn't be so fraught.

[lupusreal]

This discussion is about the proposal to, by law, force all businesses to be workers cooperatives. That's not the liberal capitalism found in Nordic countries, it's communism.

[ClumsyPilot]

Communism does not have businesses, worker owned or otherwise. It does not even have currency and money at all.

Early form of capitalism didn't have limited liability companies. Just because you have to use Unlimited Liability Partnerships, for example, that does not mean it's not capitalism.

Once we move beyond capitalism, there are other words too, like mercantilism, imperialism, Neo-feudalism (arguably what we are getting to), schumpeterianism, etc. Expand your vocabulary.

[shiroiushi]

>Communism does not have businesses, worker owned or otherwise. It does not even have currency and money at all.

Huh? You seem to know absolutely nothing about how the Soviet Union worked. They certainly did have money and companies. (And don't give me that BS about the CCCP not being "true communists" -- No True Scotsman fallacy)

[ClumsyPilot]

> You seem to know absolutely nothing about how the Soviet Union worked

I think it’s you who doesn’t. Notice USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was not a Union of Communist Republics. Have you stopped to think, why is that?

Leaders of USSR were communists, as in they believed in Communism. However, according to them, the country was socialist and they were working towards the goal of achieving Communism. That goal would be achieved eventually, when society or economy or technology was ready. But no official or leader of the Soviet Union would claim that they have already achieved communism.

So you can use USSR to claim that putting communist leaders in charge is a bad idea, but you cannot claim that USSR was an example of communism because not even people running it at the time claimed that it was.

And yes, the eventual goal was to get rid of the concept of money. You can read any of the soviet sci-fi, like Bull's Hour, and see how they imagined it would work.

[nayuki]

Why would a communist society need money in the first place? Isn't everyone given some fixed ration of goods? Or that he can take what he needs?

[kerkeslager]

That's not what I'm arguing for. I'm just shooting down fascile anti-worker rhetoric.