That’s the main issue. But their approach to the economy was awful as well. Unions just collected money and did nothing, plants and factories produced either copies of goods created in the capitalist world, or things that looked bad. People who wanted to wear good-looking clothes were waiting for the end of the month because shops to gain the desired number of purchases were selling western goods for a day or two. Jeans weren’t officially imported and sold. People were buying jeans for two monthly salaries, and it was ok because anyway it was hard to spend the earned money. For a worker, it wasn’t beneficial to improve something in the factory, and nobody wanted to suggest such improvements. There was no market and because of this, nobody wanted to make better goods or make the production process more effective. There was no need in economy of resources, and because of this, production was ineffective. The Soviets admitted it, but weren’t able to change it. Goods made in the USSR and briefly in the ex-USSR countries after the USSR collapsed, were ugly, outdated and expensive. They just couldn’t compete in the market. And there are many people telling capitalism is bad. Capitalism is more effective in providing cheaper good-looking goods because companies have to make profit and compete for customers.
I’ve been thinking if we could just make all companies employee owned by law. You’d still get the benefits of capitalism but instead of vampiric investors getting all the benefits it would be the employees that reap the rewards of their own hard work. There are already employee owned businesses that compete just fine against investor owned businesses so I feel like it’s already proven out.
Investors are not bad. They cover early-stage expanses, and of course, they want to return that money and get profit. Having investors is better than having nothing. As an alternative, workers can work for free until the company becomes profitable, or even invest some money in it. But I don’t think most workers will agree with such a scheme.
There are other ways of securing early capital that don’t require you to give a percent of your company to investors. I don’t think anything needs to be black and white, but the situation where the only people profiting off the success of a company is outside share holders creates a very anti worker incentive.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
That’s the main issue. But their approach to the economy was awful as well. Unions just collected money and did nothing, plants and factories produced either copies of goods created in the capitalist world, or things that looked bad. People who wanted to wear good-looking clothes were waiting for the end of the month because shops to gain the desired number of purchases were selling western goods for a day or two. Jeans weren’t officially imported and sold. People were buying jeans for two monthly salaries, and it was ok because anyway it was hard to spend the earned money. For a worker, it wasn’t beneficial to improve something in the factory, and nobody wanted to suggest such improvements. There was no market and because of this, nobody wanted to make better goods or make the production process more effective. There was no need in economy of resources, and because of this, production was ineffective. The Soviets admitted it, but weren’t able to change it. Goods made in the USSR and briefly in the ex-USSR countries after the USSR collapsed, were ugly, outdated and expensive. They just couldn’t compete in the market. And there are many people telling capitalism is bad. Capitalism is more effective in providing cheaper good-looking goods because companies have to make profit and compete for customers.
I’ve been thinking if we could just make all companies employee owned by law. You’d still get the benefits of capitalism but instead of vampiric investors getting all the benefits it would be the employees that reap the rewards of their own hard work. There are already employee owned businesses that compete just fine against investor owned businesses so I feel like it’s already proven out.
That’s called market socialism if you’re interested in reading about it.
Investors are not bad. They cover early-stage expanses, and of course, they want to return that money and get profit. Having investors is better than having nothing. As an alternative, workers can work for free until the company becomes profitable, or even invest some money in it. But I don’t think most workers will agree with such a scheme.
There are other ways of securing early capital that don’t require you to give a percent of your company to investors. I don’t think anything needs to be black and white, but the situation where the only people profiting off the success of a company is outside share holders creates a very anti worker incentive.
What are those ways? I’m really interested, 'cause as I know startups usually search for investors.
But that’s textbook authoritarianism. Nobody will willingly give away their life’s work to what will, in practice, be the state.