Let's assume they do. Let's assume all the factory belongs to workers.
What happens if, for some reason, one of the workers wants to sell his share? He may need some money in short term, he may just not be interested in taking part of the organisation of the factory. For whatever reason, he has the right to sell his part of the factory, even to someone who doesn't work in this factory. It's his concern.
I would think that workers would reinvest their earnings from one batch of product to pay for repairs, upgrades, and supplies for the next batch. If you needed some extra money, you could simply contribute less of your earnings from the previous batch than you normally would.
If you really had to, you could promise some your future earnings to someone in exchange for some money now (without interest). But a worker wouldn't get much for selling a share of the building that houses the cooperative because only work done entitles one to a portion of the final product. Also, owning a building is expensive because you have to maintain it. Only it's occupants would be interested in that.
What I mean is that giving a factory to workers would not change the system, it would just consist in stealing present owners to give to others.
In the case of a revolution, the workers would just be taking back what belongs to them. I'm not too big on that though. I advocate simply divesting ourselves from capitalism.
I have nothing against partnerships. I am only against forced and government-subsidized partnerships.
The employee-employer relationship is forced.
You could always... I donno... what's the word... oh yeah: Buy. You could always go and buy the land you want to use. Of course, that's a larger upfront cost, but you save on overhead.
With what? Furthermore, why pay someone for land that he isn't using?
Tell you what... When you can take care of everyone else who asks you, and still manage to feed yourself, I'll sign up for the Proudhoun Kool-aid. Until then, you are still a selfish being, and that's a good thing, because it means you can eat.
Well, I take care of my employer, landlord, and lender, for what it's worth.
Thus re-enforcing my conception that anyone who says "Stop people from doing X!" is really saying: "Please stop me from doing X!" As an employer, did you stick to your convictions, or did you "exploit" your workers?
I couldn't maintain a cooperative, friendly relationship with my single worker while treating her like a worker. I don't see how anyone can. That was a long time ago and I've matured since then. It's definitely besides the point though.
They are. Market price is what they can get for it. Since what they can get for their labor is (in the example provided) 10 BTC/hr, That's the market price.
Voluntarily selling that which you produce on a market and having to sell yourself are different things.
He is using it. He goes in every day, probably. He has an office there, from which he does his work. Some of that work is delegating other work.
To that extent he is a worker, yes, he deserves a share of the product that he helps to produce, but only to the extent that the other workers agree.
Apples and Oranges are both fruit. That doesn't make a tangerine the same as a Granny smith. In other words, Picking other peoples locks to steal their stuff is not the same as employing people.
My point is that you can use your capital to exploit or not.
Indeed. It also behooves a company to pay its workers enough to keep them.
But only just enough.
Slavery was not the most profitable way of doing things, mechanization was. That's why slavery was slowly losing out to mechanization. Had the civil war not occurred, slavery would still have ended, with some estimates placing it within just a few years.
I doubt that. Blacks can operate machines just fine. Besides, de facto slavery has persisted since the abolition of the official institution.
I find it sad that Union workers demand higher wages and greater benefits with no apparent regard for the fact that they are sucking the company dry. So I guess that's one thing we have in common.
Well, you lament that employers don't make as much as they would in the absence of worker solidarity. I lament the dearth of worker solidarity.
And he's getting it. If he does not like the wages offered, he can seek employment elsewhere, or seek a raise. If his skills are sufficiently valuable, he will get it.
...At the mercy of an employer or other exploiter.
No, But I'd like to think we've learned a few things since then.
So would I.
Which they are doing, by working for them, as opposed to attempting to go solo.
This arrangement does not represent a democratic decision as much as it does a shakedown. Having to choose between starvation and a set of extortionists does not equal freedom.
I'd say the running away is a pretty clear indication... Don't see a bunch of factory workers throwing down their tools and demanding ownership of the company.
At least the slaves had Canada to look forward to. Historically, factory workers did resist the capitalist employee-employer relationship and they paid dearly for it. I'm just doing my part to reawaken workers' sense of indignation. Too many years of servitude have dulled it.