I wonder if we could close it even further if we let the employees control the means of production.
In this firms, employees control the means of production because employees are the means of production. Such firms tend to be mostly owned by employees themselves.
These firms are not known for being family friendly or having a work life balance. The reason is that these firms are populated by high productivity, high effort individuals. Such people rarely want to work with people less dedicated than themselves, people they rightly think of as underperformers. (I've worked with such people in the past and it's dreadful.)
In your proposed world, high productivity employees would likely self segregate into high productivity firms which would not be particularly family friendly. Lower productivity employees who want to take years off from the workforce and put family first would shift into lower productivity firms.
This means the same inequality would exist. Women would work at the family friendly firms, their husbands would work at the high productivity firms, and the inequality would continue.
(In fact, even in the modern world, inequality of this sort has been the primary driver of inequality growth. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21199 )
Though I am not sure how this problem can be addressed. I suspect that the fact that humans wouldn't have to work so much would alleviate part of the problem.
They are maybe 6 people, 10 people and as a result, most people in them do find that they can, in fact, structure their own hours to be family friendly.
This does not mean they are not competitive in their niche. It just means they are small and prefer to be that way, in part because the people in them prefer to have time for their lifestyles.
Paying wages (and fair ones at that) along with trying to match the efficiency of those who (i) use extensive automation, at the expense of worker employment and (ii) purchase extremely cheap labour time (sweatshops, places where labour laws aren't as strict etc.) is almost untenable.
It can be done, but it's extremely hard to get done successfully, and it does not solve the societal problem of worker exploitation and reckless abandon for the environment.
The consumer is not always right, especially when the consumer is so influenced by advertising and the culture of consumption. I would much rather not meet the need of a single customer if it meant I could have freedom from being forced to sell my labour.
You aren't forced to sell your labour. It's just that most people do so because they want to things they can get in exchange.
These things only come about due to people realising that capitalism without some kind of governmental safety net is utterly barbaric. It is also impractical, from a philanthropic position, even if I do not sell my labour, others must do it, which I believe is still an injustice.
I do not think it is just that someone must choose between selling their labour and living in destitution and poverty, nor do I think it is just that workers are not rewarded fully for their work.
It is entirely forceful for any semblance of a life free from worry about if one can make it to the next month from the money his government gives him. This holds doubly for those working where exploitation is much more visible, such as sweatshops.
Furthermore in order to support those who do not work, one must pay taxes, which cannot well co-exist with the rights of freedom, equality and dubiously property. Read Proudhon's "What is Property?" for something interesting.
Here's an interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxSHcQqiMc
The world is gonna be a lot better off if that someone is compensated for doing so.
I agree, so why must we be under a system which unfairly compensates those who do no work at all, while those who do the work are routinely exploited? The world is gonna be a lot better off without sweatshop labour and disregard for the environment insofar as profits are made.
You just don't want people to be able to make a return on invested capital. And you also want to have labor & environmental standards.
It seems you've moved the goalposts.
All wage labour is like this, provided that you are selling it to someone with the express intent for profit. In a society that has prisons and punishment, though, those who exploit labour would be treated the same as those who steal or force people into unconscionable contracts.
The profit motive as shown through history has almost always caused massive environmental damage. Labour standards merely give the illusion of a world without exploitation. In reality your prpgrammer in SV is exploited the same way, but to a lesser degree, than the sweatshoo workers.
I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings.
Given that you don't value my needs and desires at all, why should I value yours?
I would prefer a society where I can count on cooperation rather than defection from strangers in most encounters.
By the way, why did Nordic socialism work so well?
The Nordic countries have been moving away from Nordic socialism for 20 years because it doesn't actually work very well, even with a society comprised of Nordic people.
Indeed. I suspect the main downfall of mono-ethnic social states is the development of hyper-vigilance against individual defection. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
One wonders if the same effect eventually develops in all societies that are composed of outbred ethnic groups.
This is not socialism in any sense of the word. They have a social democracy.
Here's a random paper I just googled up that at least introduces the problem: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2bf67b79-61a2-42fd-b...
The short story: there's an association between declines in social trust and people of different ethnicities living in the same society. It's not clear which way the arrow of causality points, but there is some reason to think that a highly multi-ethnic society leads to decay of social trust (ie defection)
These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to.
I value your needs, I value what you want. But I do not value the fact that your need must only be satisfied by my being forced to sell my time for your need.
I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. Either way, I would argue that the freedom of the whole world, of all the workers, is more important than desires for new cars, computers, jewellery etc.
When we are producing so many products and yet people cannot afford to live with clean water, clothes or not having to worry about starving, lack of health insurance etc. then I think we have a problem.
Capitalism does not function for the purpose of the needs of humans. Not by a long shot, so please do not frame it that way. It is merely a side effect. And I'm not asking you to value my needs, I'm asking you to value the needs of your fellows and, if you are a working person, yourself.
Again, I do not want to satisfy needs under threat of destitution, poverty and death.
The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. You help him to do it.
I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced.
So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Somehow I doubt that the absence of force is what you had in mind.
No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival.
>So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me?
Yes, that's correct.
Ask yourself - how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them?
Yes, that's correct.
I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit.
>I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade.
None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.
Employees do control the means of production. They make all the decisions and do all the work.
You probably meant to say own the means of production.
Tried that. See: every Communist regime, all of which failed :)
Anybody is free to create a startup with 100% employee ownership - you can do it today. All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will.
This is an uncharitsble and pessimistic view of the development of socialist theory since the failure of such regimes. Arguably capitalism has a more rich history of failure.
>All the power to you, it'd be cool if that worked, I just don't think it will.
Precisely; you can see that it is almost impossible to avoid exploitation of yourself or others worjers within capitalism.
source: born in USSR
Ha. Yes. That argument.
It's funny debating about the colour of the night sky with people.