- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,362
- Reaction score
- 1,342
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Swedish model is better model/example for the work Theodore A. Burczak laid out. Germany is heavily regulated.
Interesting, seems to be right in line with what I posted here:
Germany as a Model for American Labor? | Heretical Druthers
Are Swedish firms owned by workers? Also has anyone ever studied this? It seems like you coudl do so, just you would not want to do a raw comparison of data. You gotta adjust for certain variables.Swedish model is better model/example for the work Theodore A. Burczak laid out. Germany is heavily regulated.
Are Swedish firms owned by workers? Also has anyone ever studied this? It seems like you coudl do so, just you would not want to do a raw comparison of data. You gotta adjust for certain variables.
Then how is it a test for what Burczak laid out? He was primarily concerned with worker's democratically running their firms.Not any that come to mind. So no major company. Like all countries there might be a few co-ops around.
Then how is it a test for what Burczak laid out? He was primarily concerned with worker's democratically running their firms.
I've read his book!Um, Burczak is not arguing for that. You should read the article, first.
Socialism after Hayek said:To make the case that a socialist future absent exploitation might be achieved by labor-managed entreprises....
Socialism after Hayek said:They[Bowles and Gintis (1993)] argue that it is quite conceivable that firms in which worker democratically appropriate the entire product may utilize resources more efficiently than firms in which capital owners appropriate.
This may be true, but I did not find in my reading Burczak ever arguing in favor of unions, unless you were to argue they helped take back running the firms from the capital owners.I just said Sweden was a better example then Germany. Sweden's model for Unions is actually pretty good and very efficient.
Burczak envisions a "free market socialism" in which privately owned firms are run democratically by workers
I've read his book!
I'll quote the beginning sentence of his 6th chapter, where he begins to talk about labor managed firms.
a later on page 119 he clearly states that democratic management is the best of labor-managed enterprises, if you take Hayekian knowledge problems seriously.
Rereading it, it mostly talks about labor-run firms, not specifically democratically run by labor firms. However I'd argue these are more consistent with hayekian local knowledge they allowing some high ranking union members to run the firm.
This may be true, but I did not find in my reading Burczak ever arguing in favor of unions, unless you were to argue they helped take back running the firms from the capital owners.
After Burczak wants a world where labor hires capital, not capital hires labor.
Edit: From the link that kushinator posted
.
I've read his book!
I'll quote the beginning sentence of his 6th chapter, where he begins to talk about labor managed firms.
a later on page 119 he clearly states that democratic management is the best of labor-managed enterprises, if you take Hayekian knowledge problems seriously.
This may be true, but I did not find in my reading Burczak ever arguing in favor of unions, unless you were to argue they helped take back running the firms from the capital owners.
After Burczak wants a world where labor hires capital, not capital hires labor.
This is the heart of our misunderstanding. The book was linked, as that is what I thought you were talking about. The linked article I think was written by JP, which is why I was confused when you talked about burczak's argument. My bad.I don't care about his book. It's not what was linked which is what I was talking about.
He wants labor to act like the entrepreneur, instead of the capital owners. This is what I was getting at when I said labor hires capital. Please don't be presumptuous and assume I did not understand something. I merely wanted to know how Sweden's tested out this worker' co-op stuff.But good for you reading his book but I bet you misunderstand his position since I've already see you are just pulling random quotes from it.
Then you know his position better than me. I apologize. I did not know he changed his position slightly. I've just read his book.I know Ted. He and I debate a few times a year when I am back in the Columbus area (He's a professor at Denison University). We've debated this several times. He's knows his Austrian Economics and Marxian Economics damn well which has allowed him to come up with theory but in itself it has flaws.
I did not know his position had changed. Again my apologies.Again, nothing to do about the link (article JP posted.) And privately Ted knows it's impossible and has actually accepted the fact 7/8 years after the book was printed that it's flawed. Hence this article which is new is the most current position which JP nailed pretty well. But he's not here to defend his position or explain it so I won't speak for Ted.
Didn't know he wasn't a Marxist, especially since he seemed to understand it rather well, in the book at least. My apologizesBurczak is not a Marxist, nor is he an Austrian. He's basically Social Democrat of the European type which is heavily Union based but realize on centralization of power.
Right, except he wants only Co-ops, I believe. No traditional firms allowed.This is no different then a Co-Op. Co-Ops don't work very well in a society with capital nor does it work in a Marxist society thus Co-Ops will not work period which is why he tries to fundamentally change the structure of market-socialism.
Then you know his position better than me. I apologize. I did not know he changed his position slightly. I've just read his book.
Also I actually have been to Denison and am semi-familiar with it! It's a good school! Also, it's a rather nice campus, IMO.
I did not know his position had changed. Again my apologies.
Didn't know he wasn't a Marxist, especially since he seemed to understand it rather well, in the book at least. My apologizes.
Right, except he wants only Co-ops, I believe. No traditional firms allowed.
What are the flaws in Co-ops? I genuinely do not know. We never talked about this in school. I imagine the free riding problem still exists. Albeit shouldn't it be limited, via the profit sharing? I guess capitalist could be required to motivate and monitor workers and that could make traditional firms more efficient.
edits: clarified a few things, also it cut off half your quotes.
They cheat?In that case, I agree. I'd much rather learn from real-world experience than ivory tower eggheads preaching from a book.
You know what they say about those who can't do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?