None of this is credible without an argument about what will replace the profit motive. Altruism doesn't count because it obv doesn't work.
-
-
Replying to @bill_bonker @FreddieDeboer
Why would the profit motive even be replaced. Right now CEOs seek profit because stockholders want them to (continued)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
If the workers owned the means of production and got the profits, would workers would also want profit, and still tell the CEO to seek it?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
In issues not directly related to workers' rights, why does a CEO care if he's serving the stockholders or the workers? Both want $$$
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @FreddieDeboer
That would work if company's workers owned the company, but not if all workers everywhere owned all companies collectively.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because "all workers . . . collectively" could not exercise agency / oversight directly, and their intermediaries need a motive, etc. etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bill_bonker @FreddieDeboer
Suppose 1 million people own Apple stock now. Why does 200 million people owning it cause different dynamic?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @FreddieDeboer
What happens to the people who hold stock in companies that fail? Do they stop participating in collective ownership, or get new stock?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bill_bonker @FreddieDeboer
Are you asking me? I am not a socialist and am confused what people mean by it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @FreddieDeboer
Oh, sorry, I guess we are on the same page.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sorry, that's embarrassing, I thought *you* were trying to explain socialism to *me*.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.