Richard D Wolff: Democratize the Corporations

[Cnut237]

doesn't UBI just treat the symptoms too? it doesn't restructure the class system or property ownership. it just doles out a small entitlement---just big enough to keep the population from rioting and revolting.

It probably depends on how it's implemented. If we are considering a huge economic downturn due to Covid19, and vastly increased unemployment, then a UBI at a sufficient level to enable people to work part-time, and so spread the available employment across more people, might be desirable. Of course as you raise the level of UBI, you raise the cost to the government, which suggests increased taxation of the wealthy (as increased taxation of the poor would defeat the object). The various trials so far have been implemented in various ways, and have mixed results... there is no point in my quoting evidence for anything, as it is easy to find evidence that supports the opposite side. But a sufficient level of UBI might lessen the importance of money in the eyes of many, and be a first step towards pointing society to a different goal. You may be correct that UBI might initially be implemented as a sticking-plaster that is barely sufficient... but even so, anything that reduces inequality reduces the psychological power of money, even if only slightly.

If we look longer-term, then I would argue it is likely that unemployment will be extremely high as more and more jobs are automated, and there are ever fewer jobs that can be done better by people than by machines. And inequality will increase as the labour costs of the rich disappear. UBI funded by taxation of the rich may be inevitable eventually. Some of the ultra-rich are already getting a bit twitchy about levels of inequality... see for example the below, from Robert Johnson, a Soros hedge fund manager.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich

By January, 2015, Johnson was sounding the alarm: the tensions produced by acute income inequality were becoming so pronounced that some of the world’s wealthiest people were taking steps to protect themselves. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Johnson told the audience, “I know hedge-fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway.”

Johnson said, “If we had a more equal distribution of income, and much more money and energy going into public school systems, parks and recreation, the arts, and health care, it could take an awful lot of sting out of society. We’ve largely dismantled those things.”

As public institutions deteriorate, élite anxiety has emerged as a gauge of our national predicament. “Why do people who are envied for being so powerful appear to be so afraid?” Johnson asked. “What does that really tell us about our system?” He added, “It’s a very odd thing. You’re basically seeing that the people who’ve been the best at reading the tea leaves—the ones with the most resources, because that’s how they made their money—are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out of the plane.”

[bits4books]

Wow, some Marxist is suggesting that workers participate in making important decisions in the Corporation!
No this is a disgusting idea and it should be given maximum disapproval and the Professor himself should be ostracized by now.
If in order, then

The decision about what to produce, when to produce, etc., is a collective decision instead of the top management decision. This means skilled workers have the same vote as the janitors.

1) Since when should a cleaner have a voice? She does not know how the date differs from the big date what kind of voice is it?
2) create your own company and decide for yourself what to produce and when. And if you are an employee - you can either work or go fuck yourself, if you want to climb where you are not even asked to look.

The workers are also the owners of the company; therefore, they get to choose what to do with the profits.

Once again, create your own company and decide what to do there. Your profit is your salary that your employer pays you. If you disagree with this and think that you deserve more/you are not treated well, then look for another place or launch your shit startup with a brilliant idea that will bring a revolution to the world. No one is bothering you!

Worry about machines replace your job because it will lower costs? It's not a problem with this democratic corporation since the goal is to keep the workers happy.

Great for the sake of cleaners and low-skilled staff, I will keep people at work and pay them money instead of buying a batch of robot vacuum cleaners and a batch of CNC machines that will replace all this stuff with better production. But the barmaid will be happy that it was not replaced with a buffet!
In General, this is another example of fucking and innovative ideas from those people who have never done anything large-scale themselves in their lives, other than lifting a volume of Marx in one hand and Lenin in the other. The proposals are a complete mess, the implementation is even worse.
That's about it. I was triggered.

[HeRetiK]

Unfortunately companies get really creative when it comes to circumventing regulation.

Introduce a limit to executive pay ratio? "Outsource" cheap labour to an "external contractor".

Introduce a limit to how many people a company can hire without actually employing them? "Downsize" your company and buy cheap labour from multiple "external contractors" that all "follow regulation".

Note that I'm not arguing against regulation, but pointing out how tough it is to get companies to follow them.

it's not just businesses. those loopholes are intentionally built into the law. most regulations are structured to hurt small businesses and benefit large corporations under the guise of protecting consumers. that should come as no surprise since it's support from big corporate lobbyists that is getting politicians elected in the first place. quid pro quo....

It definitely happens but I don't think it's always intentional. Sometimes it's just incompetence, sometimes it's a good idea with bad execution. Sane regulation mostly seems to work though, despite all the edge cases that sometimes come up. But that's what courts are for.

Take GDPR for example. Poster child of good idea / bad execution. Annoying as fuck? Sure! But it's the first time I've seen companies big and small actually caring about how they handle their customer's data.

[...] or to restructure society so that money is not the ultimate aim.

To me this seems like the only way to get real change, as everything else is merely trying to treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. The introduction of universal basic income seems to be the only way to get there though.

doesn't UBI just treat the symptoms too? it doesn't restructure the class system or property ownership. it just doles out a small entitlement---just big enough to keep the population from rioting and revolting.

Isn't that the current state of the system though? Just enough people earning just enough money so that just enough people have too much to lose to risk any actual change?

One thing that UBI brings to the table is that it could help people break out of their current hamster wheels. If you're working your bones off to make it from paycheck to paycheck there's little time to think about improving your situation. Take that necessity out of the equation and people can consider taking different paths. Consequently employers would also need to improve how they treat and pay their low-skilled workers, otherwise no one would work for them. In this respect UBI enables free market economics in areas where they were previously missing -- people would not get coerced into shitty jobs anymore because they need to survive but are given a choice to either earn something extra or take a pass unless being offered adequate working conditions.

[...] But a sufficient level of UBI might lessen the importance of money in the eyes of many, and be a first step towards pointing society to a different goal. You may be correct that UBI might initially be implemented as a sticking-plaster that is barely sufficient... but even so, anything that reduces inequality reduces the psychological power of money, even if only slightly.

That's the thing. The only way to get long lasting change is slow and steady by carefully tweaking the incentives. A brute direct restructuring of society and property only leads to reactionary counter-movements.

[mu_enrico]

There has been several attempts at this on the past as well and as you may guess it has not ended well. This is a link to one of those attempts.

https://fee.org/articles/marxism-on-the-menu-why-the-communist-restaurant-failed/

There are success cases and failures; it depends on which one gets cherry-picked. For me, if incompetent (and lack of commitment) people gather in a group to build something, they will fail whatever the system they use, and vice versa.

The discussion about communism vs capitalism should have ended long time ago when the US defeated the USSR not through war but thanks to their superior use of their resources, a.k.a. capitalism.

But Marxists argue that Leninism and Stalinism aren't pure Marxism, and the first Capitalism that replaced Feudalism ended in failure as well, so maybe after several trials, there will be a successful Marxism case. We just don't have enough experiments because of the deep love of Capitalism. Even Democrats are capitalist; they just pushed for more "socially responsible capitalism."

this is a disgusting idea and it should be given maximum disapproval and the Professor himself should be ostracized by now.

Err, you sound like a Marxist

[Cnut237]

Your profit is your salary that your employer pays you. If you disagree with this and think that you deserve more/you are not treated well, then look for another place or launch your shit startup with a brilliant idea that will bring a revolution to the world. No one is bothering you!

If you leave it to the market to determine what is fair, in a society where there are more people than there are jobs, then this leads to exploitation. Should we really allow wages to be forced down to (or below) bare subsistence level? Should we allow monopolies and cartels? Medieval feudalism? Indentured servitude? Excessive inequality is bad for everyone. Rich people hoard money. Poor people spend all of it and keep it circulating in the economy. There needs to be something in place to act as a brake on the excesses of capitalism. Whether this should entirely be government responsibility, or whether it should start by changing company structures and cultures instead is open to question. But surely something is required. People who are more talented, have great ideas, have more drive etc, do deserve to be paid more. But the people at the bottom deserve to at least be treated like humans. Remember we are talking about people working long hours for low pay.

I will keep people at work and pay them money instead of buying a batch of robot vacuum cleaners and a batch of CNC machines that will replace all this stuff with better production. But the barmaid will be happy that it was not replaced with a buffet! [...] The proposals are a complete mess, the implementation is even worse.

I agree with you on this part. If a job can be automated out, then do so. Inefficiency is stupid. But instead of removing a job and putting the profits in the hands of the already wealthy bosses, why not use the money instead to fund a job that benefits society as well as keeping someone in employment?

[figmentofmyass]

doesn't UBI just treat the symptoms too? it doesn't restructure the class system or property ownership. it just doles out a small entitlement---just big enough to keep the population from rioting and revolting.

It probably depends on how it's implemented. If we are considering a huge economic downturn due to Covid19, and vastly increased unemployment, then a UBI at a sufficient level to enable people to work part-time, and so spread the available employment across more people, might be desirable.

sure, as some sort of band-aid solution. it will keep people from starving in the streets, basically.

it's just not an answer to the systemic economic problems we face, especially with the specter of large scale job automation constantly hanging over our heads. it's a simple expansion of the welfare system, which itself only exists as a way to give poor people just enough to subsist. it doesn't fundamentally change anything. it's just a way to offset the effects of rising costs of living and rising unemployment.

[Hydrogen]

Marxist professor, Richard D Wolff lays down a plan for companies in a socialist economy. Here are some of the points he made about  "Democratize the corporations:"

- One worker, one vote
The decision about what to produce, when to produce, etc., is a collective decision instead of the top management decision. This means skilled workers have the same vote as the janitors.

- Workers-owners
The workers are also the owners of the company; therefore, they get to choose what to do with the profits.

- Not profit maximization
Worry about machines replace your job because it will lower costs? It's not a problem with this democratic corporation since the goal is to keep the workers happy.

Do you guys like this concept?

Imagine chinese communists sitting around a boardroom table. Smoking weed and brainstorming ways to convince americans to destroy their own economy. So that china can emerge as the #1 global power.

....

"Americans love democracy. Let's convince them granting unqualified, uninformed, uneducated and undisciplined workers executive power to make key business decisions is a good thing."

"Would they fall for that?"

"We spent decades lowering their educational standards. Feeding them unhealthy GMO food to stunt their intelligence. Bombarding them with cultural garbage like the kardashians in an effort to diminish their cognitive capacity and common sense. There is a chance it could be successful."

[bits4books]

Your profit is your salary that your employer pays you. If you disagree with this and think that you deserve more/you are not treated well, then look for another place or launch your shit startup with a brilliant idea that will bring a revolution to the world. No one is bothering you!

If you leave it to the market to determine what is fair, in a society where there are more people than there are jobs, then this leads to exploitation. Should we really allow wages to be forced down to (or below) bare subsistence level? Should we allow monopolies and cartels? Medieval feudalism? Indentured servitude? Excessive inequality is bad for everyone. Rich people hoard money. Poor people spend all of it and keep it circulating in the economy. There needs to be something in place to act as a brake on the excesses of capitalism. Whether this should entirely be government responsibility, or whether it should start by changing company structures and cultures instead is open to question. But surely something is required. People who are more talented, have great ideas, have more drive etc, do deserve to be paid more. But the people at the bottom deserve to at least be treated like humans. Remember we are talking about people working long hours for low pay.

I will keep people at work and pay them money instead of buying a batch of robot vacuum cleaners and a batch of CNC machines that will replace all this stuff with better production. But the barmaid will be happy that it was not replaced with a buffet! [...] The proposals are a complete mess, the implementation is even worse.

I agree with you on this part. If a job can be automated out, then do so. Inefficiency is stupid. But instead of removing a job and putting the profits in the hands of the already wealthy bosses, why not use the money instead to fund a job that benefits society as well as keeping someone in employment?

I'm sorry but these are the most irrelevant examples-you compare warm with soft. All that you have described will not return for the simple reason that it is a passed stage that has shown its inefficiency in comparison with the current model.

And for the rest - with the proposed scheme in the post, it is impossible to reorganize any of the existing companies because otherwise it will collapse in a week.
If you set a requirement for such an organization for new companies , there will not be a single successful example. People will stop wanting to start a business because no one wants to. Imagine yourself-you want to eat a salmon sandwich, but before you buy it in subway, you need to ask permission from your parents, your wife and children, all relatives. If you get it - then the employee at the checkout must get permission from EVERYONE in the company and only then if the stars converge you will get your sandwich.
Such a management system generates an unthinkable and unreasonable amount of both paper and organizational work.
And finally - do you really want a cleaner with an elementary school education to have a voice in decisions about the company's development? I don't want to because it's already not a company but an anti-cafe where everyone discusses [something] and then goes home without coming to a consensus.

I agree with you on this part. If a job can be automated out, then do so. Inefficiency is stupid. But instead of removing a job and putting the profits in the hands of the already wealthy bosses, why not use the money instead to fund a job that benefits society as well as keeping someone in employment?

Many companies are engaged in charity work. Many companies have salary grades and all sorts of bonuses for employees. Google, for example. Do you think that it is cheap and free to maintain an entire corporate campus? Everything in this world has to be paid for, either with money or without it. And you know very well that it is better to choose the first option than the second..

[figmentofmyass]

"Americans love democracy. Let's convince them granting unqualified, uninformed, uneducated and undisciplined workers executive power to make key business decisions is a good thing."

worker ownership doesn't imply every executive decision requires a company-wide vote. i don't see why they couldn't elect perfectly capable operational executives.

think of it this way. shareholders just extract profits from the company. they don't actually provide any value. so what's wrong with cutting them out? if the goal of a company is not to generate profit for shareholders but to provide a good living and workplace for its workers, what's wrong with that?

[Cnut237]

do you really want a cleaner with an elementary school education to have a voice in decisions about the company's development?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, it would be absurd. Worker representation at board level would not mean pick a random worker, or even consult every worker, merely have someone (or more than one) person there who represents the interests of the workers rather than the interests of the executives or the shareholders.

Many companies are engaged in charity work.

I may be cynical, but I suspect this is often a token PR gesture. Difficult to imagine a board discussion running along the lines of "We've made an extra $1bn this year!" "Great! Let's give half of it to charity!"

Do you think that it is cheap and free to maintain an entire corporate campus? Everything in this world has to be paid for

I'm not suggesting that companies don't have costs, of course they do. The question is more about whether companies should be run solely for the benefit of shareholders.

shareholders just extract profits from the company. they don't actually provide any value. so what's wrong with cutting them out? if the goal of a company is not to generate profit for shareholders but to provide a good living and workplace for its workers, what's wrong with that?

Yes, exactly. And if the company contributes to the wealth and well-being of wider society, too.

[mu_enrico]

Sorry, I'm late to join the party.
I've been busy guessing the slots 

1) Since when should a cleaner have a voice? She does not know how the date differs from the big date what kind of voice is it?

One person, one vote, is the principle of democracy. In the election, a billionaire vote weights the same as a peasant vote. Just like government-level democracy, not every decision requires a vote.

I was triggered.

Relax mate. It's only an idea

Let's take UBI out of the equation for a moment, since this case is still at the corporation level. To change a government is the ultimate goal of this experiment.

If you set a requirement for such an organization for new companies , there will not be a single successful example. People will stop wanting to start a business because no one wants to.

There are some success stories other than the infamous Mondragon Corporation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

Furthermore, Legend says that FC Barcelona is a fan-owned cooperative.

worker ownership doesn't imply every executive decision requires a company-wide vote. i don't see why they couldn't elect perfectly capable operational executives.

True!

[Hydrogen]

worker ownership doesn't imply every executive decision requires a company-wide vote. i don't see why they couldn't elect perfectly capable operational executives.

think of it this way. shareholders just extract profits from the company. they don't actually provide any value. so what's wrong with cutting them out? if the goal of a company is not to generate profit for shareholders but to provide a good living and workplace for its workers, what's wrong with that?

The goal isn't to improve status quo for workers.

Its to strip majority share holders like Jeff Bezos(amazon) and Elon Musk(tesla) of control of their own companies. (And there are worse implications.)

Remove intelligent and competent leadership. Replace with unqualified puppets. Innovation and progress stalls as a result.

If anyone cared about the implications, they could test this on a small scale, on a trial basis to collect data on how it performs.

When people propose implementing wide sweeping measures that have never been utilized or tested before on a large scale. Isn't it a tiny bit suspicious?

If someone proposed building a house, using a radical method that had never been tried or tested before. Would it sound like a good idea to risk everything on a one shot solution people know nothing about.

Would people be willing to gamble the stability of their economy and job markets on a "solution" that was never vetted through a testing process.

[HeRetiK]

The goal isn't to improve status quo for workers.

Its to strip majority share holders like Jeff Bezos(amazon) and Elon Musk(tesla) of control of their own companies. (And there are worse implications.)

Did I miss the part of the discussion were it was suggested to apply this idea to existing companies? Serious question, one loses overview quickly.

When people propose implementing wide sweeping measures that have never been utilized or tested before on a large scale. Isn't it a tiny bit suspicious?

If someone proposed building a house, using a radical method that had never been tried or tested before. Would it sound like a good idea to risk everything on a one shot solution people know nothing about.

Or suppose someone proposed creating a currency, using a radical method that had never been tried or tested before...

[Hydrogen]

Did I miss the part of the discussion were it was suggested to apply this idea to existing companies? Serious question, one loses overview quickly.

Chinese billionaire Jack Ma was forced to step down from Alibaba.

One might say he stepped down so that the chinese communist "workers party" could take control of it, indirectly.

This is happening right now to existing companies in various forms.

One might say the SEC tried to do this to Elon Musk utilizing different methods to reduce the control and influence he has over tesla.

The media is also trying to do this to amazon to some degree. Trying to force amazon to utilize unions and accept other measures to whittle away the control Jeff Bezos has over it.

[figmentofmyass]

worker ownership doesn't imply every executive decision requires a company-wide vote. i don't see why they couldn't elect perfectly capable operational executives.

think of it this way. shareholders just extract profits from the company. they don't actually provide any value. so what's wrong with cutting them out? if the goal of a company is not to generate profit for shareholders but to provide a good living and workplace for its workers, what's wrong with that?

The goal isn't to improve status quo for workers.

Its to strip majority share holders like Jeff Bezos(amazon) and Elon Musk(tesla) of control of their own companies. (And there are worse implications.)

Remove intelligent and competent leadership. Replace with unqualified puppets. Innovation and progress stalls as a result.

.....to what end?

these ideas have roots in anarcho-syndicalism, going back to the 1800s. they weren't invented to strip jeff bezos of power.

the entire reasoning behind worker self management is the conflict between shareholder and worker interests. why would workers be interested in self-management otherwise?

The goals of self-management are to improve performance by granting workers greater autonomy in their day-to-day operations, boosting morale, reducing alienation and eliminating exploitation when paired with employee ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

....and what proof do you have that this model would stifle innovation and progress? worker-owners have just as strong of an interest in a successful growing company as do capitalist shareholders, since they can pay themselves the dividends. in that sense, the profit motive still exists.

If anyone cared about the implications, they could test this on a small scale, on a trial basis to collect data on how it performs.

revolutionary concepts don't usually work like that.

[Hydrogen]

the entire reasoning behind worker self management is the conflict between shareholder and worker interests. why would workers be interested in self-management otherwise?

The goals of self-management are to improve performance by granting workers greater autonomy in their day-to-day operations, boosting morale, reducing alienation and eliminating exploitation when paired with employee ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

Imagine that you live in a world where homeless populations are swelling in numbers off of the working class being screwed 24/7.

Imagine that CEO's gave themselves the raises that were supposed to go to the working class over the past 4 or 5 decades.

Imagine that a campaign is being pursued to replace human workers with robots. Workers are under attack and have been for a long time to an indifferent and apathetic public that remains asleep and has not noticed.

...

Now imagine that one day those responsible for these anti worker policies came to you and said "let's give workers more power by eliminating powers traditionally held by CEOs or shareholders".

Would you believe they care about workers after they spent the past 50 years killing jobs, killing wages and otherwise attacking the prosperity of the working class to such a ridiculous degree that homeless populations were significantly growing in size?

....and what proof do you have that this model would stifle innovation and progress? worker-owners have just as strong of an interest in a successful growing company as do capitalist shareholders, since they can pay themselves the dividends. in that sense, the profit motive still exists.

I bet china won't adopt this. The EU won't adopt it.

Its a USA only proposal. Innovation and progress are what makes america's economy and gdp great. Marxist professors aren't proposing this because they want capitalism to succeed, their goal is and always has been the opposite.

If anyone cared about the implications, they could test this on a small scale, on a trial basis to collect data on how it performs.

revolutionary concepts don't usually work like that.

Socialism routinely throws trillions of dollars at untested ideas with no proof of concept.

Capitalism demands both testing and proof of concept before throwing even a million dollars at ideas.

[stompix]

Marxist professor, Richard D Wolff lays down a plan for companies in a socialist economy.

Oh, this time it will work! Of course, this time we have the perfect plan!  
It will certainly not fail like the other quadrilion times we tried!

My first reaction when I read the title was something like, how about we democratize your ******* my dear profesor.

The decision about what to produce, when to produce, etc., is a collective decision instead of the top management decision. This means skilled workers have the same vote as the janitors.

Makes perfect sense, you have 10 designers and 100 janitors so the next car will come with triple screen wipers, two fridges, and no seatbelts or airbags because real men want to die like real men, not pussies who spend all their times in an office and are afraid of hard work that makes a real man.

Worry about machines replace your job because it will lower costs? It's not a problem with this democratic corporation since the goal is to keep the workers happy.

No problem, you'll just end up producing stuff 10 times more expensive and you will not sell any and go bankrupt.
But that's when socialism kicks in since the entire company is owned by workers, there will be no bankruptcy, everyone can come with money from their own pockets and keep the business alive....hmm, I have a feeling this plan has a flaw but I can't pinpoint it.  

But Marxists argue that Leninism and Stalinism aren't pure Marxism, and the first Capitalism that replaced Feudalism ended in failure as well, so maybe after several trials, there will be a successful Marxism case. We just don't have enough experiments because of the deep love of Capitalism.

Of course, they aren't because they've failed. Every leader that embraced marxism didn't embraced the real one, that's why it ended in failure.

[mu_enrico]

Makes perfect sense, you have 10 designers and 100 janitors so the next car will come with triple screen wipers, two fridges, and no seatbelts or airbags because real men want to die like real men, not pussies who spend all their times in an office and are afraid of hard work that makes a real man.

You mean like this?

Source

To be fair, there are many famous cooperatives, including Mondragon et al., so the plan must have some merit in it. Perhaps it will works in agriculture as it's not profitable without massive scaling.

[stompix]

To be fair, there are many famous cooperatives, including Mondragon et al., so the plan must have some merit in it.

Yeah, it works, but there is a problem, sometimes it stops working and all the socialist Marxist bs doesn't mean shit and 2000 people are left unemployed
https://www.ft.com/content/26740e3e-2aee-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca

Even in the case of Mondragon, there is no worker's vote, no matter how they try to paint it's still a corporation, it's still a place where if business fails workers get the boot, it's a place where only a few take decisions and the rest obbey.
Marketing sells, and just as people are willing to buy things made by individuals or fresh stuff from the countryside they also become clients of Mondragon because it's about the people, not profits ! Until it's not anymore!  

Perhaps it will works in agriculture as it's not profitable without massive scaling.

Hmm, agriculture, agriculture, and profits...
Agriculture is no longer profitable without machinery and pretty soon there will be no more workers, the heavy work will be done by only a few and the real battle will not be with the weather but with the caterers and the chain stores or merchants who buy your stuff. Farming has become a sector where efficiency means everything, a few cents will make the difference between survival and bankruptcy, what you need are no longer workers who know how to plow but salesmen, probably of all sectors I see it as the less capable of keeping its same number of employees for a long time.

Local cooperatives as they were well before Marx maybe, guild-like business again maybe, but on a larger scale and keeping all the teachings of Marx, nope. It hasn't worked in the past it won't work in the future.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

There is a difference between justice and equality. All people are equal in terms of their rights and duties, but they are different in terms of their qualifications and capabilities and therefore they must be distinguished on this basis.

Agree fully, but I think the state of our society currently is having a problem with this, and instead of working toward a meritocracy corporations are being strongly influenced by those so-called diversity quotas and other left-wing political ideas.  The net result is that companies are not always hiring the right person for the job, and I find that to be a shame.

I haven't watched the videos OP linked to, but I have to say that socialism has been tried and it doesn't work.  It's not going to ever work.  There certainly are problems with capitalism, but I think it is far superior to socialism/communism/anything else currently in operation. 

Oh, this time it will work! Of course, this time we have the perfect plan! 
It will certainly not fail like the other quadrilion times we tried!

That about sums up my feelings--socialism sounds so great in theory, but when put into practice it always falls apart into various abuses of power, unrest, and ultimately becomes a system which is inferior to capitalism.