AKingsburyYou can claim my discussion is not serious all you want; I'm not the one responding with "okay" and nothing else. I don't claim you're promoting communism because A. I understand the general meaning of that term and B. I'm not generally in the habit of claiming things I don't think are true.
Jonathan D. Cope, Esq.@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I responded "OK" because your comments basically about Commons Capitalism were 1) it's just socialism, so let's dismiss it and 2) it won't work, which is usually the way traditional capitalists avoid having a sincere discussion about it.
I responded "OK" because your comments basically about Commons Capitalism were 1) it's just socialism, so let's dismiss it and 2) it won't work, which is usually the way traditional capitalists avoid having a sincere discussion about it.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
At that point, I saw no good reason for further dialog. That was a polite way of ending it.
At that point, I saw no good reason for further dialog. That was a polite way of ending it.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
A counterpoint to what? That Commons Capitalism isn't socialism or that it won't work?
A counterpoint to what? That Commons Capitalism isn't socialism or that it won't work?
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
No. Capitalism has no ethics as one of it's components. I'm not confused about that.
No. Capitalism has no ethics as one of it's components. I'm not confused about that.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
Sorry. I'm just talking like a lawyer. There's a clear delineation between a code of ethics and criminal laws.
Sorry. I'm just talking like a lawyer. There's a clear delineation between a code of ethics and criminal laws.
I agree. There is a clear delineation. Neither, however, is part of capitalism. Capitalism is not a legal system, it is an economic one. The only legal ideas you could draw out of it are that its tenets should be protected, but that's hardly it being a legal system. It just demonstrates that a legal system is necessary to protect it.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I don't want to get buried in the semantics but the laws are probably part of the political aspect of capitalism.
My point is that capitalism is proscribed by regulations and penal statutes. For some in capitalism, those are their only bounds.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
The only reason I discuss ethics is that some posters will make some claim about capitalism as if it should act ethically. A lot of people have misunderstandings about capitalism. Sometimes I try to address those.
But, I'm interested in sincere criticism about Commons Capitalism.
"Sincerity" from other is a goal you can have in such conversations, but I submit to you that it's not particularly productive. If someone presents a valid criticism but they do so without any sincerity, is the criticism therefore less valid? I approach these conversations honestly and sincerely, but of course I can't prove that to you in any meaningful way. You can dismiss me as "insincere" at any time and no one can disprove your assertion.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I think people can make valid and invalid criticism of Commons Capitalism just so long as it leads to constructive dialog. I don't mind if it's invalid. Insincere criticism so long as it's valid is fine, also, but I doubt that it would lead to constructive dialog.
I think people can make valid and invalid criticism of Commons Capitalism just so long as it leads to constructive dialog. I don't mind if it's invalid. Insincere criticism so long as it's valid is fine, also, but I doubt that it would lead to constructive dialog.
I think that the idea of "The means of production and net profits are held for the benefit of the workers as a commons" amounts to socialism. If the means of production are held as a common...well, that's socialism. Well, it's ONE form of socialism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Which, if you want socialism, fine. That's a conversation reasonable people can have. But I don't think coming up with new names for things is particularly helpful.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I understand and appreciate your argument. I've had hours of conversation on this very issue. The problem is how do you define capitalism. The only aspect of what I'm proposing that's different from traditional capitalism is that the net profits and means of production are held by a nonprofit corporation instead of individuals. That meets the definition of capitalism.
I understand and appreciate your argument. I've had hours of conversation on this very issue. The problem is how do you define capitalism. The only aspect of what I'm proposing that's different from traditional capitalism is that the net profits and means of production are held by a nonprofit corporation instead of individuals. That meets the definition of capitalism.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
So if the means of production and net profits were held solely to help other corporations would that be socialism?
So if the means of production and net profits were held solely to help other corporations would that be socialism?
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
Here's what I write about the distinction between commons capitalism and socialism:
Commons Capitalism may cause some results that are convergent with the goals of socialism, i.e., spreading wealth within a community and reducing the concentration of wealth in individuals; however, socialism is characterized by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] (continued)
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
In commons capitalism, the means of production would not be socially owned, but privately owned by each CCE. No CCE would be owned directly or indirectly by the public, community, collective, cooperative, or employees as the CCE is designed to have no stakeholders or any other potentially vested or contingent beneficiaries.
In commons capitalism, the means of production would not be socially owned, but privately owned by each CCE. No CCE would be owned directly or indirectly by the public, community, collective, cooperative, or employees as the CCE is designed to have no stakeholders or any other potentially vested or contingent beneficiaries.
"the means of production would not be socially owned, but privately owned by each CCE."
Suppose I don't want to be part of a CCE. Suppose I wish to own my own means of production.
"No CCE would be owned directly or indirectly by the public, community, collective, cooperative, or employees"
Then who would own it?
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
The CCE owns the means of production and the net profit. The workers have no property interest in them. There are no shareholders or other stakeholders to the CCE. It has no members.
The CCE owns the means of production and the net profit. The workers have no property interest in them. There are no shareholders or other stakeholders to the CCE. It has no members.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
Oh, and payment of wages and benefits go only to present and past employees of the CCE and to no one else. Nothing is distributed for public benefit or general welfare.
Oh, and payment of wages and benefits go only to present and past employees of the CCE and to no one else. Nothing is distributed for public benefit or general welfare.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
CCEs would own companies just like any other corporation. The difference is that it will pay it's net profits for the benefit of its workers. If you don't want to work for a CCE just don't go to work for it. A CCE doesn't preclude you from having your own business or belonging to a coop. To the contrary, CCEs would encourage you to do so.
CCEs would own companies just like any other corporation. The difference is that it will pay it's net profits for the benefit of its workers. If you don't want to work for a CCE just don't go to work for it. A CCE doesn't preclude you from having your own business or belonging to a coop. To the contrary, CCEs would encourage you to do so.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos They are not intended to be a super great idea for everyone, especially individual shareholders. They are only conjecture at this time, but they could operate fine under current federal and state laws and regulations.
The US economy could easily accommodate 3,000 (2024 numbers) CCEs owning 6,000 separate businesses. Remember, this couldn't happen overnight. It would take 75-100 years for them to have measurable effect.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
No they're not great for everyone. But in 75 years, 70,000,000 workers could be receiving a prevailing wage salary and Nordic-style benefits.
It will take a long time, but capitalism has been around for 400 years. I will be long gone before the first CCE is funded.
There are innumerable questions. That's why I'd like to have this debated by economists, sociologists, lawyers, socialists, capitalists, accountants, management, etc.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I think your request is fair. I'm researching Commons Capitalism now and writing a white paper on it. But still it will take several months to prepare. It's hard to convince people that this is a new concept. They think in terms of traditional capitalism and socialism.
I think your request is fair. I'm researching Commons Capitalism now and writing a white paper on it. But still it will take several months to prepare. It's hard to convince people that this is a new concept. They think in terms of traditional capitalism and socialism.
So you're not quite sure how this system even would work, but you're going around promoting it?
And yes, people do tend to think in terms of capitalism versus socialism. As long as you're willing to use pretty commonly understood definitions for those words, there's really not all that much else. Either the means of production are held collectively, via the government or some other such mechanism, or they are not. No real other options there.
@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I'm quite sure how it would work. I heavily represented businesses for 25 years and lectured and authored on business, closely held corporation and limited liabilty company law during that time. I'm doing the research to explain to academics how Commons Capitalism works and to show how it contrasts to traditional capitalism and socialism.
Hopefully, they won't be as contemptuous, dismissive and as antagonistic as you are about Commons Capitalism.