It can be, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I think a non-profit economy would be a mix of private and state organizations. And I’m not even necessarily advocating for a full non-profit economy. I think private profit can have its place in society. But I think some industries should be mostly, if not entirely, non-profit. For instance, I think healthcare should be non-profit. I think profit introduces incentives that make an effective, ethical healthcare system difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
I’d be careful around some of the other people in this thread because I don’t think they’re thinking what you’re thinking.
Possibly. I consider myself a critic of capitalism, but I’m not a Marxist. I think Marxist theory is flawed because it’s based on the labor theory of value, and I think the labor theory of value is incomplete, at best. The labor theory of value made a lot of sense in the 18th century when Adam Smith came up with it. He looked around Scotland at the time and saw butchers, and blacksmiths, and bakers, and cobblers, etc, and in every instance he saw human labor transforming raw materials into useful finished products. It makes sense why he would see labor as the source of all value creation. But, then the industrial revolution happened. Steam engines and eventually machines that could turn raw materials into useful finished products with minimal, if any, human labor. And that’s never been more true.
So if human labor isn’t the source of value creation, what is? Well, it’s clearly energy. No value can be created without energy. Whether it’s a human laborer, or a beast of burden, or a machine, none of them can do any useful work without energy.
But I digress. The thing is, I think the problem a lot of Marxists have with profit is that they see it as stolen labor value, and thus the solution is to make workers owners so that they can receive the full benefit of their labor. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but making workers owners wouldn’t necessarily fix everything. Workers can still be greedy. Workers want to get paid as much as they can for as little work as possible. At least some workers will cut corners and raise prices to put as much money in their pockets as possible.
BTW nonprofits can still pay their CEOs and boardmembers millions.
That’s very true. Theoretically, executives would be kept in check by the member-owners, who would vote out board members or executives who were acting too greedy. But, in practice that doesn’t always work. I worked for a credit union, and our executives did start to treat the organization like they owned it and we were all working for their profit. I hoped the members would vote them out, but most members weren’t aware or involved enough to know or care.
Maybe the “stakeholder” economy people are right. I don’t know, but we need an alternative to capitalism. When private capital owns and controls everything, the greed just gets too out of control. And the consequences of that are lining up to be severe.
It can be, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I think a non-profit economy would be a mix of private and state organizations. And I’m not even necessarily advocating for a full non-profit economy. I think private profit can have its place in society. But I think some industries should be mostly, if not entirely, non-profit. For instance, I think healthcare should be non-profit. I think profit introduces incentives that make an effective, ethical healthcare system difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
Possibly. I consider myself a critic of capitalism, but I’m not a Marxist. I think Marxist theory is flawed because it’s based on the labor theory of value, and I think the labor theory of value is incomplete, at best. The labor theory of value made a lot of sense in the 18th century when Adam Smith came up with it. He looked around Scotland at the time and saw butchers, and blacksmiths, and bakers, and cobblers, etc, and in every instance he saw human labor transforming raw materials into useful finished products. It makes sense why he would see labor as the source of all value creation. But, then the industrial revolution happened. Steam engines and eventually machines that could turn raw materials into useful finished products with minimal, if any, human labor. And that’s never been more true.
So if human labor isn’t the source of value creation, what is? Well, it’s clearly energy. No value can be created without energy. Whether it’s a human laborer, or a beast of burden, or a machine, none of them can do any useful work without energy.
But I digress. The thing is, I think the problem a lot of Marxists have with profit is that they see it as stolen labor value, and thus the solution is to make workers owners so that they can receive the full benefit of their labor. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but making workers owners wouldn’t necessarily fix everything. Workers can still be greedy. Workers want to get paid as much as they can for as little work as possible. At least some workers will cut corners and raise prices to put as much money in their pockets as possible.
That’s very true. Theoretically, executives would be kept in check by the member-owners, who would vote out board members or executives who were acting too greedy. But, in practice that doesn’t always work. I worked for a credit union, and our executives did start to treat the organization like they owned it and we were all working for their profit. I hoped the members would vote them out, but most members weren’t aware or involved enough to know or care.
Maybe the “stakeholder” economy people are right. I don’t know, but we need an alternative to capitalism. When private capital owns and controls everything, the greed just gets too out of control. And the consequences of that are lining up to be severe.