Sola
beta
8 months
Photo #1 from Rotenburg (Wümme), Germany by Prof. Dr. Lewy made on 2018-07-25 07:21 for Sola

Capitalistic Freedom

2819votes
0SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
77
648
2819
Germany, Rotenburg (Wümme)
77 comments
Hanover Fiste
Capitalism has no "ruling class" but socialism does....switch the words around and see 😎
30
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
You're welcome to go back to sleep in your bubble.
20
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, you deny facts?
15
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
I refuse to argue with someone who believes his ideology is fact. Go and discuss your needs with others.
10
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Capitalism is far from perfect, but up till now there hasn’t been a better alternative. Capitalism combined with a dose of social care works very good.
16
Hanover Fiste
Prof. Dr. Lewy, please put down your device, and use one that wasn't invented and built under capitalism. Prime example is Henry Ford, who had a goal to put a car in every driveway. He got rich, but he also made cars affordable to everyone. But you could dig up iron, smelt it your self, and hammer it into place by your self. Call us when you're done building a car. Capitalism is what created the idea of specialists. Everyone becomes an expert at something, and things get done cheaper and faster. If you're not benefitting, it's because you're only an expert in lethargy.
10
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Mx. Goat, your argument is historical nonsense. It's boring and not at all convincing. If the argument had an atomic meaning, at the end of feudalism any royal ruler could have declared the bourgeois revolutionary efforts to create capitalist conditions to be idiocy as follows: "FEUDALISM is far from perfect, but up till now there hasn’t been a better alternative. FEUDALISM combined with a dose of social care works very good."
20
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Well, there’s a non-argument. Just give me a better alternative and arguments why it would work better.
25
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Hanover Fiste, the epochs of history do not differ in what is produced, but in the ownership under which it is produced. Otherwise, at the end of feudalism, the feudal ruler would have said to the revolutionary people: "Do you want to abolish the achievements of our world? What will you eat if you abolish bread, cheese and milk? Do you want to do away with wine too? How will you travel without a horse-drawn carriage?" The revolutionaries would have replied: "That's such a stupid argument. We do not want to abolish the products. We want to keep the tools. And also the production of these goods. What we want to do away with are the conditions under which production takes place. We want capitalist production conditions. Because they are more productive and will enable us to increase not only the number of goods produced but also their quality. And we want new products. Chocolate, for example. And cars. And computers. The new conditions will explode the wealth and make it available to many more people. But for that we have to change the ownership structure. Sorry, but you won't be our ruler anymore."
10
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Mx. Goat, I just had to show that your argument that something couldn't exist because it didn't exist yet is nonsense. You gotta admit, that's a stupid argument. And boring. And unbelievable. Because otherwise nothing new could develop. Not even capitalism. And that was my example. I think my argument sufficiently destroys your argument.
10
Peter
Prof. Dr. Lewy, welcome to the real world.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, ah so you are a lazy couch critic without ideas how to do it better. Makes this card all the worse, at first I thought you were one of those anarchy fanboys. Come back once you actually have ideas about better functioning societies.
20
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Mx. Goat, just to keep to the logic: I did not say that there is no idea of transformation to replace capitalism with a higher, more productive, more humane, more social formation. (And I am sorry to say that, but the fact that you can't name a single idea yourself shows how unread and ignorant you are.) Rather, I showed that your argument that something could not develop because it had never existed before is nonsense. Of course you're right about one thing: this card only criticizes the old. However, raising awareness of this criticism should trigger the search for alternatives. And that is the task of all people who accept this criticism. What they implement exactly, i.e. how they replace the old in order to create something higher, more productive, more humane and more social, is not a "question of thought", but a question of practice. Many forms of transformation can exist. I'm a follower of Worker Coops. I believe that they are the starting point of the transformation. So what now?
10
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I never said something new could not develop, that was your arrogant assumption. I simply said that capitalism isn’t as bad as many haters want to make it look like, that’s why I also provided the link of the worldwide progress. Anyway, a worker coop is a great way to have shared responsibility and shared revenues and it’s perfectly possible within the current capitalist system. But what reason would entrepreneurs with great ideas have to start a worker coop in stead of a commercial venture where this entrepreneur gains most profit? You can’t force such things.
Hanover Fiste
Prof. Dr. Lewy, you go on and on talking about production. What you're missing is innovation. It's pretty simple. Socialism does not find new cures, or more efficient methods. Ownership is beautiful. You just want the fruits of someone else's labor.
Mmmmmm
The link is not working or is it the facts?...
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Hanover Fiste, you have shared owners and shared revenues in a coop, so you’ll reap the reward. If your incentive is to make a shitload of money of your innovation you won’t choose a worker coop though.
Hanover Fiste
Mx. Goat, why not? In a worker coop, it is agreed how much each worker makes based on their contribution. It can be agreed on up front that the inventor gets 30% and the rest gets divided up amongst the rest. So, why not?
Hanover Fiste
Mx. Goat, also if the workers have a stake, they're more motivated than just being paid hourly.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Mx. Goat, it is my (arrogant?) assumption, because it was your assumption. Your argument above was: "Capitalism is far from perfect, but up till now there hasn’t been a better alternative. Capitalism combined with a dose of social care works very good." Regardless of the truth of your last statement, your argument is: - "Capitalism is far from perfect (...)". That means: One can critisize capitalism, one can imagine a better society. - "Capitalism (...) works (...)." That means: it exists. - " (...) till now there hasn’t been a better alternative." That means: a better alternative society never existed and doesn't exist. Here, your comment stops. You don't add anything. So far, you've only made these three statements. They say nothing in themselves. You might as well let them go. Unless it contains the statement that what is conceivable cannot replace what exists because it did not and doesn't exist. Or you were talking stupid, incoherent stuff. You can choose. I have to stop know. The rest of my replica will follow later.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Hanover Fiste, it all depends on the numbers agreed upon, correct. Still, if it’s worthy of the name coop, the guy with the idea makes considerable less money compared to a ‘normal’ commercial venture.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, in that case you should have let this whole card go. 😁
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Mx. Goat, I see that you are dropping your false argument that something that did not exist before will not develop in the future. That's good. Let's get on with Worker Coops. You are right: Worker Coops are possible, arise and exist in capitalism. That is precisely why they are realistic starting points for the transformation of capitalism: they are not capitalist enterprises, can be founded in capitalism, but go beyond capitalism. They are crystallization points of a higher social formation, because according to Karl Marx they cancel out the contrast between capitalist and worker. Therefore, Marx himself was convinced that the transformation of capitalism in capitalism itself begins with the founding of individual Worker Coops by workers. And he defined socialism as a society in which the basic form of production is the Worker Coop. I will be writing on the subject of innovation tomorrow. Here, too, you produce thinking errors.
Hanover Fiste
Prof. Dr. Lewy, is that all you got? Ad hominem? You probably don't even know what that means....
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, nice Lewy, I didn’t drop anything, I only corrected your assumption. 😘 And no matter how awesome your worker coops will be, it will only change society if the actual innovators freely join them.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
I told you that I will write about innovations tomorrow. Just wait. You will be surprised.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I highly doubt that, but who knows.
5
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
You didn't know a lot today and learned a lot. It'll be similar tomorrow.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, I’m continuously correcting you, I don’t feel like doing that again tomorrow.
10
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
You don't want to understand how innovation takes place in Worker Coops?
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Prof. Dr. Lewy, only if you make more sense then today.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
If you didn't understand anything today, we don't need to try tomorrow. It's not getting any easier. Logic is and remains part of my narrative. Then we'll let it go.
Idagf about shit
Mx. Goat, if you want greatness profit cant be the incentive,
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
True, not everyone has profit at the top of his list.
Tyler Anderson
I love how with this picture capitalism and socialism or communism seem to be interchangeable. In the end, either way, the ruling class seems to be the issue, so why not remove the ruling class and let people choose which system they want to follow, allowing for an economy of coops, businesses, and communes to start to cover the world
10
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Like anarchy? That doesn’t work either. There will always be power hungry people that will draw power to them and rule all.
Tyler Anderson
Mx. Goat, kek you mean somehow someone is going to go "hey, you know all this freedom you have? What if you gave it to me instead" and that will work? Thats pretty retarded
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Tyler Anderson, who said give? Power is usually taken, by force if necessary.
Tyler Anderson
Mx. Goat, lol then they will get shot pretty quickly. Imagine trying to do that in a world where guns are 100% unrestricted. You would be turned to swiss cheese bro.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Tyler Anderson, how naive. Promises of power will unite a lot of people to obtain a goal. Wars are won or lost. You can be sure there will be wars and somebody will eventually end up on top. There is no such thing as a happy ‘let’s do this all together’ society, at least not for long.
16
Tyler Anderson
Deleted by Sola moderator
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Ah ideologists, they’re all the same, naive and tunnelvisioned.
Tyler Anderson
Mx. Goat, says the one who did not make any points to defend their argument, just "yeah itll happen" youre just a cultist who worships the state
Hanover Fiste
Mx. Goat, Tyler Anderson, you realize that you're both right? Power will come either by force or by empty promises.
Activist Goat
Pro Creator
Tyler Anderson, cultist? I rather call it realist. 😄
Idagf about shit
Mx. Goat, better leaders should be the call, ruling class are inherent to societies
Tyler Anderson
Idagf about shit, society is a phantasm of the mind, nothing is inherent to it
Hyde
Its not often the dumbest card I'll see today happens first thing in the morning.
11
Christopher Bowen
Interesting perspective, actually, that’s how the Wall & Class Dynamics in Communist and Authoritarian Socialist systems work. Not so, inside a healthy and open capitalist system. The tens of millions of legal immigrants entering the USA over the past century are a testament to that fact.
1
Hyde
Ssh.....simply repeat.... "Communism good capitalism bad, communism good capitalism bad"
Hanover Fiste
Hyde, if you repeat BS enough it becomes true.
🎺 Stay Frosty ✠
And the solution is- Marx *Again* Who knew
Hyde
Is there ever another viable solution??🙊🙉🙈
DELETED USER
The system we see today is a crony capitalism. Lets be real here centralized the power to a few token people they will use it for their benefits. Same goes with socialism. It has been proven over and over. Capitalism has gotten us pretty far untill the cancer of the corrupt government and corporations centralized the power to benefit themselves. The root of the problems will always be corrupted individuals that seek out the best way to manipulate cheat and steal from anyone in their way
Viqueen
So true. Will happen even if there were 100% worker co-ops. Some would become more successful and wealthier, and thus would garner more power.
1
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Deleted by comment owner
Viqueen
No-no, some co-ops would become more successful, everybody would want to join them, they'd grow and eventually have a lot of power.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Viqueen, I am not sure if this true. In Worker Coops, of course, different wages and salaries are permissible and common depending on the complexity of the work. However, the gap between the highest and lowest wages is not as wide. Just one example: for Mondragon (a Worker Coop in Spai ) the highest content must not exceed the lowest content by a certain factor (I believe 6). This means that income inequality remains within certain bounds, because the workers themselves as owners determine the rules.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Viqueen, I'm not sure what you mean with the term "power." Power over who? In any case, the self-determined work of 100,000 workers in a worker co-op, where workers decide together on the most important issues such as wages, investments, products and locations themselves is more democratic than a company with also 100,000 workers who do not decide on the issues because these decisions are made by 5 owners and 10 top managers. I believe that an incredibly higher concentration of power and income is generated here than in a worker co-op.
Viqueen
Prof. Dr. Lewy, these 100 000 workers can, and probably will do anything to keep down their smaller competitors (other co-ops) and would effectively prescribe government policy. However, as reaching an agreement is a nightmare already with 10 people involved, I really want to observe how that would play out with 100 000. A whole bunch would probably jump ship when they don't agree with a decision, and it would quickly become a real jumble of folks switching between co-ops.
5
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Viqueen, these are justified objections that must be answered. You write in the subjunctive. You don't need that. Afterwards I will illuminate with you all questions, which your comment raises, with the help of the big worker coop "Mondragon". You will see that you have every reason to doubt your own doubts.
Viqueen
Prof. Dr. Lewy, honestly, I don't care much, because I have no intention of joining any co-ops. I've already had it with being a member of a condo association and having lead projects with under 10 seriously interested stakeholders. It can be done, but it's a complicated and clumsy way of getting things done. But why don't you rather start a co-op and share your own experiences with operating it?
1
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Viqueen, I just left the apartment. Later.
DELETED USER
the underling form of the main problem is the structure of the way people think. We have been in a psychological warfare grounds for some centuries now unless we target the behavioural reactions to monetary value we will keep recycling old habits that keeps us divided and arguing instead of collaborating to find a better process
15
Hyde
Viqueen, anyone who has tried to come to an agreement amongst 10 individuals *just a you mentioned* knows the nightmare it is. Expecting 100,000 folks to come together and agree on anything is virtually *if not literally* impossible. The only way I see it being possible is through voluntary cooperation. This allows like minded individuals to come together, form unions, and continue to attract more like minded individuals. I believe it would splinter off long before 100,000 joined though.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Dear Viqueen, even if you are not particularly interested in the topic (according to your own statement, you "don't care much"), you have made a contribution to the topic. Therefore it is normal that someone contradicts you, even if you are still not interested in the topic. Paradoxically, a lack of interest has a certain advantage: if the discourse partner has the better arguments, it should be easier to accept them. 1) Your first argument is, that bigger worker coops "probably will do anything to keep down their smaller competitors (other co-ops) and would effectively prescribe government policy." Your argument is a theoretical one. Carefully you have added a relativizing "probably". In the first step I would like to stay on this theoretical level. Your argument, even if it was true, is not an argument against Worker Coops as opposed to capitalist private property. Under capitalist conditions, large companies and corporations also do everything to keep down their smaller competitors. The Worker Coops would therefore not be a step backwards on this issue in relation to capitalist conditions. However, they would still have the advantages I mentioned above, such as democracy in the workplace, more income equality, less concentration of power. And now, I would like to answer your objection by taking a look at reality. (Speculative answers, usually recognizable by terms such as "probably", have to backtrack if the answer can be found in practice.) Mondragon, the Worker Coop from Spain I mentioned earlier, is a network of many Worker Coops. Some are bigger, some smaller. It is important to know that the cooperation between them is offered in the regulations and statutes of the cooperative. A separate university and 15 technology parks were founded, whose research results and teaching are equally available to all associated Worker Coops. There is a joint bank that passes on the deposits of some to the others as low-interest loans. As soon as a Worker Coop gets into economic difficulties, the other Worker Coops have to help him according to certain specifications. For example, "surplus" workers from a troubled Worker Coop are integrated into the production processes of the other Worker Coops. During the great crisis since 2008, Mondragon has not fired a single worker. All this means that whether or not larger Worker Coops suppress the smaller Worker Coops depends on the rules and statutes of the organization. The fact that this can lead to solidarity in practice has been proven by reality. In any case, there is more solidarity here in the relationship between the larger organisations and smaller organisations than in capitalist competition. The Replica to your second answer will follow as soon as possible.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Viqueen, 2) Your second argument is that you cannot imagine that with so many decision-makers a decision supported by all could come about. Either there will be no decision or, if there is, a certain number of workers who disagree with the decision will move from Coop to Coop which will result in confusion or chaos. This argument is again only theoretical and speculative. You are again using the term "probably". I suggest we look back to reality. The Worker Coop "Mondragon", which I have already mentioned, is the seventh largest company in Spain with around 80,000 employees. Any worker can become a comrade by holding part of the share capital. Thus he becomes owner and is allowed to participate in the elections of the management structure - yes exactly, the workers elect their executives themselves and can also vote them out :-) - as well as through coordination processes to influence the decisions of the management personnel. The company has existed since 1956 and the grassroots elections have taken place since then. No chaos has broken out. The company grew constantly and is considered stable and robust. If the workers of a Worker Coop disagree with strategic decisions and no agreement is reached, they have the right to leave the group with their individual Worker Coop. The workers of the Worker Coop also decide this democratically. But that didn't happen very often. The coordination processes are standardized. Nevertheless, the decision-making processes take a little longer than in a capitalist company with only a few decision-makers. However, implementation after the decision in Worker Coops is much faster because the workers are actively involved in strategic changes because they discuss and understand them beforehand. You see: in practice, your second objection does not stand up to the test either.
Hyde
I want him to have his socialist utopia, because he'll do it right😂😂. Just not here. Keep that ideological garbage an ocean away. I would even be willing to accept the refugees when they coming running away. They can then smack the numbskulls here talking that nonsense
Viqueen
You see, my solution, which I have been practicing for the past 15 years, is much simpler: whenever possible, work together with people who are entrepreneurs themselves. These are self-motivated people who are capable of coming in to a project, contributing what's necessary, sumbitting an invoice, and then moving on to another project. Always solution-minded, not in the need of baby-sitting, and not giving you excuses like "my dog's tip of the tail got stuck in the door and he lost 5 hairs, so I cannot come to work today." Unfortunately, statistically there are no more than 15% of entrepreneurs in any evonomy. So yes, if the rest want to run co-ops, they may. Yet as for electing officials and what not, perhaps it's a culture difference. Here in the north bosses are generally viewed as equals or peers, but it is understood that somebody has to run the project.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Viqueen, I didn't mean to discredit your solution. It was merely about pointing out Worker Coops as a realistic, already existing alternative to capitalist manufacturing companies. First, I have already explained that Worker Coops have certain advantages over capitalist companies, such as democracy and self-determination in the workplace, reduction of income inequality, higher importance of work income and job security over profit income and profit security, etc.. Secondly, I had to show that the knockout criteria for Worker Coops you mentioned don't really exist. Worker Coops have their own difficulties, shortcomings, conflicts and inefficiencies, but not the ones you mentioned above. Like you, I don't want the one-sided existence of Worker Coops. I just want to increase their numbers and put them in a situation where they compete with capitalist companies. A worker should then always have the choice of working in a worker coop where he himself is the owner and has a say in the products, profits, investments and similar decisions, or whether he wants to work for a foreign owner for pay, with all important decisions being made without him - even those whether or not he will become unemployed next year. By the way, you can see from this example that workers in Worker Coops - because they are co-owners - develop a direct interest in the development of their business. Here in particular, he has a direct interest in the productivity of his own work and that of his colleagues. He loves this company because it's his company. He will fight sloppiness and laziness here rather than in a foreign company that does not belong to him. One word more about "entrepreneur": You have set the innovative activity of private entrepreneurs in contrast to Worker Coops. In reality, this conflict does not exist. Most Worker Coops are joint foundations of people who put an idea into practice together. Worker Coops are usually classic entrepreneurs.
Viqueen
Prof. Dr. Lewy, why don't you rather go and start one? Otherwise it's just nice theory.
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Deleted by comment owner
Prof. Dr. LewyAuthor
Deleted by comment owner
Write something...
Send