Simply grouping thousands or hundreds of firms in a single category, and comparing them to a capital based conglomerate cannot be a sound comparison period.
That wasn't the basis of the most fundamental comparison methods utilized, and your apparent obsession with an isolated remark that was more vaguely anecdotal than anything else indicates a curious desire to avoid acknowledgment of more critical data.
Balance sheets from similar in size INDIVIDUAL firms is the only way to validate your assumption. Your failure to do so has shown you lack the access or the connections in what you are preaching.
And yet, you've not provided balance sheets yourself. Though I must say, I'm curious as to where you believe analyses of improved firm performance
in individual firms before and after the establishment of participatory management are derived from. For instance, I wonder at your failure to provide commentary on the clear gains enjoyed by Ohio ESOP, as well as your continued failure to read at least a portion of the extensive paper that I have provided.
News flash, small business is much more efficient than big business. Do you really believe they could exist with 4% margins? The real world dictates otherwise.
That's more due to the nature of hierarchical firm organization than sheer size or utilization of productive assets. But considering your capitalist stance, which neglects acknowledgment of information asymmetries, agency costs, the principal-agent problem, externalities, and various forms of market disequilibria, it's amusing that you would claim to deal in the "real world."
Mondragon is 120 individual cooperatives. You fail once again.:2wave:
Very good! The more astute observer would have immediately realized that there's a reason it's called the
largest corporation in the Basque region.
Better luck next time! :2wave:
It could be attributed to democratic management and not necessarily to non governance.
Your lack of understanding of anarchism will continue to doom your arguments. Direct democratic management is precisely what anarchist organizational theory entails, not "non governance." You seem to have committed the common fallacy of assuming that anarchism is synonymous with "chaos" or "disorder."
It is not entirely conclusive that democratic management is the best way for an enterprise to succeed.
There's certainly been extensive evidence provided that's indicated as much. We've specifically referred to microeconomic analysis in the way of Logue and Yates and their analyses of labor cooperatives and forms of profit sharing capitalism, and to empirical analysis of the efficiency gains and social benefits provided by the Spanish anarchist collectives. We might also indicate the numerous economic growth gains and improved social benefits promoted by the socialist Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela (although you've exhibited a tendency to wordlessly dismiss such evidence in the past), the Argentine factory recovery movement, and the experiences of Titoist Yugoslavia and the Israeli kibbutzim, though there is a complex ideological spiderweb involved in those examples. And that's just to name a few.
If we were to again refer to the vibrant literature on worker participation, we might refer to Doucouliagos's
Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor Manages and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis, especially considering the validity of Hunter and Schmidt's observation that
"scientists have known for centuries that a single study will not resolve a major issue. Indeed, a small sample study will not even resolve a minor issue. Thus, the foundation of science is the cumulation of knowledge from the results of many studies." As noted by the abstract:
Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).
Do you have similar empirical evidence to offer?
An individual running a small business could produce great results with a few employees.
Anecdotal speculation without empirical value.
And I want to know how, depending on the size of the organization, will people be able to react to situation when they may not have the time or persons to fill all positions around the clock.
Then your objection is a technical one related to access to productive assets and resources (specifically manpower), rather than an ideological one related to legitimate criticism of an anarchist organizational structure.
I understand that during times in the past that militias have had great success.
The technology that the military of now have is much different some aspects.
A blitzkrieg sweep could wipe any militia out of existence before they knew it was coming.
...And is there a reason that you continue to not provide information on why an anarchist military organization would not be able to utilize modern technology in the same manner?
Again that was short lived. Over time how will a degradation of mutual aid support the infrastructure.
It was "short lived" because of external pressures in the way of Nazi-allied fascist assaults and Leninist sabotage from the anarchists' erstwhile "allies" in the Republican government, not because of an internal failure of anarchist organizational structure. Indeed, it is arguable that deviation from anarchist principles and alliance with a statist government was the downfall of the Spanish Revolution.
It is not necessary. What it does, is like leverage, it amplifies the results both positive and negative.
If an industry grew slow and steady the positive and negative consequences would be reduced through the application of time.
There's little empirical evidence to support that view, as the capitalist powers of the world developed from the very interventionism that they now disavow for poorer countries. Your "slow and steady" claim is merely odd speculation with essentially no evidence to support it. Are you sure you understand the nature of infant industries?
It depends on which masses you are referring to.
If the majority represents middle and top earners why would they try to dispose of the the upper class?
If the majority represented middle and top earners, then what would effectively constitute the "upper class"?
I understand it completely. It is that you are using subjective terms for your definition.
Your comic strip is highly limited in it scope and a bit of an embellishment.
The surplus value goes to the one who organizes and assumes the greater risk.
I do understand that wage earners are at risk because they are working on credit but that the owner is assuming greater risk because of the investment on machines, property, etc.
The anarchist conception of surplus value involves the difference between a worker's wage and his/her marginal product contribution. If there are no set wage norms for investors and managers because of standard earnings fluctuation (which is effectively what your conception necessitates), how then would you determine precisely how their marginal product exceeded their wages? And referring back to the literature on the superior efficiency of worker participation in ownership and democratic management, why would you continue to favor a hierarchical firm structure?
As it is voluntary how could it be manned enough with out taking away from the important duties of the collective.
It could be equally assigned to all the able-bodied so as to reduce the amount of time each individual had to spend involved in active duty or service. Initial participation in the collective is voluntary. Perhaps individual collectives will waive military service requirements if some volunteer for other similarly arduous work. But from where would military conflict even emerge on a grand scale, considering the abolition of nation-states that is an element of anarchist organization?
They have a purpose of trying to understand what you are thinking.
If you say so.
It is not utopian. There is no spontaneity about it, people generally gravitate to other people who have similar interests and appearances.
Otherwise anarchists wouldn't organize themselves, they have a similar interest in something.
There's a difference between informal organization between like-minded individuals with similar ideological beliefs, and actual societal organization, obviously. The former may be dependent on a communitarian perspective (though that would be dependent on the "outcome" of the "debate" on the existence of altruism), but the latter would at least be initially dependent on an egoist perspective. Again, I think it an interesting prospect that societies might transition toward a more communitarian perspective after the establishment of an anarchist society and socialist economy, but it would indeed be utopian to assume that it was an immediately existing condition.
It is not an extreme choice to reject mutual aid in favor of competition if individual interest is greater with competition.
Of course it isn't. But cooperation often has the effect of fostering rational egoism and individual self-interest to a greater extent than "competition" does. Most theories concerning the latter are based on a social Darwinist misappropriation of the practical applications of evolutionary psychology and such, at any rate.
I do not think that rational choice always has an affect.
Understand this please.
Perhaps not, but you might as well. The unfortunate consequences of some of your beliefs make it so that you might as well support the prospect of perfect competition.
