I thought the consensus was that we have a corporate welfare state. Corporations get to privatize any and all things they touch, while socializing risk and externalities, so that the government and the little people clean up the messes said corporations make.
4 Likes
Also: âcapitalismâ and the âfree marketâ are toolsâmeans to an end, not ends in and of themselves. Sometimes they work for the benefit of society (competition-driven innovation, motivated workers) and sometimes they donât (externalized costs, child labor, slavery). I hate it when people wave away great social injustices by saying âcapitalism!â as if thatâs all the explanation we need.
We have checks and balances on the limits of âcapitalismâ for a reason.
9 Likes
Itâs pretty simple, the franchiseeâs math.
There are about 11,300 DD franchisees.
Per store, if the CEOâs compensation were to be cut by 80%, the impact on a single store would be ($8000000/(11,300) ) = $708 saved per year of operation.
Per store, if wages go up $6 per hour, and assuming two employees in the store at all times from 6 AM to midnight, the impact on a single store would be ($6.0036365) = $78,000 additional cost per year, plus additional FICA, workers comp. etc,
Iâd say it was more like corporate feudalism, but to be fair the long lasting communist countries were also more like feudalism than communism.
5 Likes
Sure, but we have increasingly less checks and balances on capitalism⌠Plus, it could be argued (as I would argue) that the term itself is a moving target historically. In many ways, our modern way of imagining a capitalist, free market system, derives directly from the slightly less than century long engagement with Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist system, as well as the brief interlude of the rise and fall of fascism. It was especially during the Cold War that the modern notions we think of as ânaturallyâ part of the capitalist system got a more coherent set of theories and frameworks. Prior to that, much of the economic system was essentially periods of happenstance followed by periods of⌠not stagnation, but defining, maybe? Like we had a couple of centuries where the race-based slave system developed in the Caribbean, Latin America, and US south, and then it was challenged by the industrialization and financialization of the US northâŚ
But yeah, tools⌠I agree with that.
1 Like
Isnât that partly because of where they developed? Russia didnât have much of an industrial base after the communist take over (they had ended serfdom like 50-60 years prior), nor did China at the end of the Civil WarâŚ
1 Like
But in 2010 their per store average was $900k a year. Yes, they would have to raise prices, but six or seven percent. And as I mentioned it will increase monetary velocity and acceleration, so it is likely a wash.
This isnât money tied up in notes. It is in circulation.
3 Likes
Both are incorrect. Feudalism involves a code of obligations owed from both serf to lord and from lord to serf. Both corporatism and Soviet communism lack that second feature.
4 Likes
If the CEO pisses in the coffee then you may have to throw out one pot. If all they employees piss in the coffee you would have to throw out 10âs of thousands of pots of coffee.
Point is - no one should be pissing in the coffee.
CEO should not be awarded vast personal wealth for trying to keep the wages of his employees low, especially lower than a living wage.
1 Like
Thank you for clarifying, @LDoBe. Thatâs basically what I meant by âcorporate communismâ, however, itâs good to remember that people arenât perhaps going to know what I mean by saying that if they donât put it into context of other things Iâve written.
Agreed. I feel the same way in regards to how socialism is used in so much extremist rhetoric. Never mind the fact that our nation is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism already. We have both publicly funded and private roads in America, for example.
The huge problem we have is those supposed âchecks and balancesâ on the limit of capitalism are in terrible shape. Unchecked capitalism is unchecked aggression.
Agreed. However, I like using the term âcorporate communismâ because it rolls off the tongue nicely and mainly due to the fact that so many Americans have palpable, negative connotations attached to the term communism due to the recent history of the USSR in their minds.
Perhaps Americans are slowly wising up, I should evolve the language to âcorporate feudalismâ, I dunno? Depends on the target audience, maybe. The Boing Boing audience is perhaps too clever for it, while a general audience is going to better understand âcorporate communismâ in their own way.
Well, I coined the term âcorporate communismâ a very long time ago and eventually the mass media (MSNBC, namely) stole it and even made a logo for it, so maybe Iâll steal corporate feudalism from you, some other art and make a logo for it right now!
I keep trying to explain to the anti-Socialist fearmongers that some of the most respected professions in America have long been socialized. Firefighters, police officers, public school teachers, librarians, soldiers, park rangers, rescue workers⌠all various extensions of Big Government. But most people donât have a problem with that because we donât CALL it Socialism.
3 Likes
Ha! Omg. That is a great point. I will be using that someday.
In what universe? McDonaldâs is (and has always been) the bottom of the barrel in Australia. Itâs the fast food you eat when there are no other options.
Australia the world.
2015.07.29 Typographical error fixed.
I can think of worse⌠Much worse. Thereâs a false bottom to the barrel.
Quoted for truth, and it also reveals the actual core beliefs behind the âwell if these people wanted a better life, they should just work harder, educate themselves and find a better job!â crowd. Because there will STILL be a need for these low-level jobs, and if everyone educates themselves, then it just means more educated people will be in those jobs with low pay. What these people are actually arguing is âyes, weâre going to need some people to live in abject poverty, but if youâre industrious, it doesnât have to be you, personally.â (Although of course, there are no guarantees even if you work your ass off trying to improve your life and pull yourself out of the designated poverty class that youâll actually succeed).
If thatâs the society they want to build, Iâll judge them on that, no matter how they try to dress it up as encouraging people to better themselves. Itâs not the society I want to build, though.
6 Likes
I agree, but I was arguing more for the anarchists that split from the communists.
1 Like
I think thereâs a snappier term than either Corporate Communism or Corporate Feudalism. If I may quote an expert on the subject:
âFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ
â Benito Mussolini
The US is hardly Nazi Germany, but it is arguably fascist.
4 Likes
FTW.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
