David Harvey "The End of Capitalism"

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

How would this better distribution idea work?

So you say you want a revolution...

Capitalism: defined return to labor (wages), all surplus goes to capital.

Communism: all surplus (in theory) goes to labor, no return (in theory) to capital.

My Way: Labor and capital split surplus in ratio to contribution.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Capitalism: defined return to labor (wages), all surplus goes to capital.

Communism: all surplus (in theory) goes to labor, no return (in theory) to capital.

My Way: Labor and capital split surplus in ratio to contribution.

As determined by whom?

John

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As determined by whom?

John

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As determined by whom?

John

Restore the labor unions and let them negotiate with management. Currently management has the deck stacked in their favor.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As determined by whom?

John

By law, and so by lawyers, and accountants. At some firms it would be smooth, at others there would be big fights....

[VanishingPoi]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As determined by whom?

John

The producers, labor, workers themselves determine where the surplus goes.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

The producers, labor, workers themselves determine where the surplus goes.

'All power to labor' is as wrong as 'all power to capital.'

[VanishingPoi]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

'All power to labor' is as wrong as 'all power to capital.'

You changed the word to power. That changes everything. It has to be democratic in nature.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

You changed the word to power. That changes everything. It has to be democratic in nature.

Whoever decides what is done with the surplus does so by virtue of having the power to do so. "Democratic" is in danger of becoming a glittering generality in this discussion; the devil is very much in the details.

If the workers and nobody else decides, or votes up the committee that decides, then they have all the power. But any kind of modern manufacturing requires millions for equipment. If you try to create a scheme where nothing goes back to wherever those millions came from, things get 'complicated.'

Of course, you probably want to expropriate all that owned capital. But 'power' rears it's head again. Only a revolution would give a regime the power to do that. And even assuming this can be brought off, with 'relatively little' violence, you now have the totalitarian problem. The new regime has, with violence or the threat of violence, gathered all power to itself, swept away all opposition, dispossessed the capitalists, and dictated radical economic change. I do not think any sort of democracy can exist in the presence of such concentrated power. And I'm afraid history bears me out on this. The people's revolution, to implement the economic revolution, must destroy the rights of the people. I see no way around this dilemma.

I want, by lawful means augmented perhaps by some levels of direct action, to put back the harness and collar on a runaway capitalism that has thrown them all off. But I surely fear revolution, and therefore, the radical ideas that must require it for their implementation.