I think the best example of this is Uber. Uber connects riders and drivers, and theoretically doesn't really do "labor". However, without the middleman, neither would likely be connected.

I'd say most companies are similar. Yes, the worker does a lot. Without the company, it's unlikely one guy manufacturing something could find as many customers, if any. Finally, not everything can be done on an individual scale: the iPhone can't be built by one man.

Also, what do you mean by dictatorships? You can leave any time you want to. The job market is amazing for a worker right now.

The workers get their compensation in the form of benefits, wages, etc. There are companies that are run as co-ops: see REI. Most employees love it their, according to a friend who worked their for a while. If you want to work there, that's fine. If you want to work at a company with stock options, that's fine. But don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it.

That's authoritarianism.

A country with a right of exit can still be quite authoritarian, just as an organization that you can leave can be as well. What's authoritarian is the structure: owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules, as opposed to the people actually doing the labor in companies. I'd generally opt for all those parties collaborating in decision making.

> don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it.

Do you think existing corporate management structures don't rely on state violence to maintain themselves? If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace, do you think shareholders would be the ones coming in and cracking heads, or government agents?

You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it.

> owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules

So? I do think some people have bad practices. Non-competes, for instance, are often abused. But you can still leave...

> existing corporate management structures... rely on state violence to maintain themselves... If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace

Yes, if there was a workers uprising, I would darn well hope the police would come in and crack heads. You don't get to "enact control" over other people's stuff (including their company). But I do think that crony capitalism is cancer, see Amazon's recent $15/hr push to force competitors out of business.

> You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it.

You're absolutely right that property rights are the Right and Natural Way for things to Be. If you don't agree, read about the tragedy of the commons. And look at the 100s of millions communism has killed.

We live in a nation founded on the basis of property rights. One of the most basic functions of our government is to enforce property rights. It's impossible to run a civilization on our scale without it. If you really don't like America and the way she's run, you could leave.

And the idea that you can have my stuff just because you want it is plain wrong.

Care to clarify? I was never alive at either of those times, nor were my predecessors (all immigrated legally after that). I and my family have fairly earned what we have. I agree there were past issues, but socialism/communism is worse in that it keeps taking every year after. And none of what you mentioned is a free market.

>I agree there were past issues,

Are there current issues as well? [1][2]

A main point is this (and I think its been mentioned elsewhere in this thread as well):

An attack on the status-quo is not a promotion of socialism

Our current implementations are a far cry from a free market. The entrenched powers and corporations don't want free markets-- its socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor [3] [4]

We'd have to start from scratch to attain a free market. And even then, the oft-quoted invisible hand of competitive markets falls flat in an increasingly opaque, complex world [5]

It seems to me that you have a strong sense of what is fair. I urge you to look out into all the wealth of information we have and take a hard look to see if our current way of being is fair [6][7]

[1] https://poverty.umich.edu/research-projects/policy-briefs/ri...

[2]https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati...

[4]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-...

[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

[6]https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

[7]https://vimeo.com/129550053

And this is a straw man, we’re talking about labor unions not Marxism.

No, we're talking about workers pushing for increased control of the means of production. That's definitionally a discussion of Marxism, even if it's people pushing for it gradually.

I lean more on the capitalist side, but this is a more interesting question than a basic view of capitalism would lead one to believe.

The ethics of capitalism are based on the assumption that the business owner rightfully has final say on all of the property of the business, and that the workers are merely guests on the property, paid to do something with the property, collect a paycheck, and go home. They have no right to it.

But then you can start asking questions like, did the capitalist have rightful ownership of the money to buy the thing in the first place? If you go far back enough, you have things like conquest, homesteading land (which is inherently ambiguous), government grants of land (open to favoritism), etc. The whole foundation can be called into question.

Again I'm not ultimately convinced by it, but I think there's at least a discussion to be had. I feel like I've heard some convincing arguments but they're not coming to me now. But if you have the patience for it (I didn't even finish it), you might check out "What is Property" by Proudhon. He lays out a philosophy called Mutualism that sort of has socialist ethics, but is still somewhat market based in the end. He enumerates all of the assumptions he sees as underlying private property ownership and makes an interesting argument against them.

There was a thread yesterday about a jury selection glitch that made young people less likely to be selected, and someone suggested making them 10x more likely as recompense. I said that wasn't fair to the new jurors or the new defendants (who would still get a biased jury). I believe it's the same here. I know several people who were raised dirt-poor, and even one who was a high-school drop-out, who started successful companies. Getting ahead is hard, but certainly possible.

There was another thread yet, a day or two back, where people were talking about the financial windfalls that they received from their parents. I found that interesting, because as one person put it, paraphrasing, receiving that money from their parents to kick-start their life and presumably successful business had led them towards a more liberal political outlook.

Having been raised in relative poverty, I have no idea what it's like to have wealthy parents to fall back on. Instead, I spent a decade after high school fighting to get ahead. Today, I find myself, over a decade later still, living what can only be called an excellent quality of life. I, instead, give back to my parents. And I look back at the path that I walked and it makes me less liberal in my politics as a result.

> Getting ahead is hard, but certainly possible.

I think that most everything we do in life is hard and that the daily challenges of life are exactly what make it worth living.

Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it.

Would the people who give absolute value to the right of property holders to do what they choose with it support the Soviet Union's right to organize its economy however it so choose, along with controlling the media it owns and the workforce it contracts with? After all, it owns the property, and anyone with credible contrary claims to it would be long dead.

The Soviet Union stole its original resources, but more importantly continued to steal all resources produced. See Dekulakization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs)

I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets")

I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers.

But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)

The capitalist answer is they don't have any right to your labor.

They purchase your labor with the wages that they pay you. You are free to not accept any opportunity offered, and either party can terminate it at any time for any (legal) reason if they feel the deal is no longer to their satisfaction.

Almost everyone believes that they are underpaid. There is a very simple way to prove it by checking your worth in the marketplace.

You are also free to ply your trade on your own if you so wish.

She's referring to the distribution and central planning aspects of socialism, which are secondary consequences of the philosophy. The discussion here is more relevant to the core tenet: worker ownership of the means of production.

If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.

Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned for public companies over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.

Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.

Interesting thought.

Well, workers can buy equity in some company if they want. And shareholders' dividends get diluted.