A company like Amazon is basically a Victorian style sponge of yesteryear, where the fat cats lap up all the jam and cream, their relatives get the cake, and the workers get the crumbs that fall off the table.
I'm with you on that! Why can't we just get rid of unethical companies like Amazon? One it's American and two it is obviously exploiting the common worker, with low wages and work practices that are ridiculous toilet breaks that are strictly timed and 20min walks to the canteen for lunch. Peeing in bottles simply because going to the toilet will take too long!
I like the ideas which Paul is espousing - a lot... I wonder if it addresses the issue of having a highly automated manufacturing system? If a company employs a few people to program and service machines, there are not very many employees to benefit from such a scheme...
Giving dividends to workers is all very well, but the decision-making power is still in the hands of the bosses. I prefer Labour's policy of growing the co-operative sector. Only when the economic system is democratic will we see things working for the benefit of the majority.
Why not both? I think its important to persue ideas that whilst they may fall short of what we hope to see in some hypothetical end state they are at least a step in the right direction and are possible withing the current overton window.
There should be no owners or managers, only elected representatives to form a worker’s council in order to run businesses. If business owners don’t want to sell their businesses to the state, they can move elsewhere.
Stuart dillon - indeed. The irony is that what Paul and Labour are pushing for is progressive Capitalism, rather than state socialism (apart from water, mail and railways). It’s clever, and the CBI know it. Basically they are proposing a ‘fairer’ version of capitalism and incentivising the staff.
Hi, I run a small start-up business. The set up he describes in the first minute - how would that affect a small business like mine that is not currently making a profit? Many start-ups don't make a profit in the first years so my question is how would we attract and retain staff when they know they are not going to get a profit share and may not get one unless they stick around for some time? Employees would naturally gravitate towards companies who will be able to offer them profit shares immediately i.e. large companies
We tried this in Sweden for about 8 years. It made several large business owners leave the country. It most certainly did not give workers any influence om the companies they work for. But it did significantly slow down our economy. That particular detail is apparently very hip in the UK at the moment.
@@jaredgarbo3679 This system was in use from 1983 to 1991. Surely it is common knowledge Sweden has been deeply committed to a different kind of madness these past 30 plus years.
@@Caldermologist out of curiosity, what was the name fo the model? I found some stuff on the Swedish pension reform model but nothing relating to what you are talking about
Most people think of income in terms of wages. Wages are less than half of GDP. Divide GDP by the number of workers compare with average wages and you'll see how much goes elsewhere. Unless you redistribute the actual ownership you'll never get anywhere.
Well let the owners leave, the workers will have to stay and have to keep running this shit anyway to keep life going and why would we send the product of our labor to them? Maybe we would get a chance to restructure this shit a little so it maybe wouldn't be quite so shit anymore. We can work out how many person-hours maintaining this society and life takes, and divide it up as we democratically see fit. We can all figure out how much of our lives we want to be dedicating to maintaining society, and it would be in the interest of us all to improve technology and tools to reduce the work required from all. If we get to democratically decide, we can just decide to organize according to "efficiency in human time spent on work to provide a good life for everybody". If you can't decide this fundamental in life within your society, then maybe your society isn't quite as democratic as you might think.
@@schrodingersferret4092 it's not about brainwashing anyone, it's simply about changing how people think about labour. You don't have to convert the jihadi in Iraq or you neighbour next door since you already have enough people already in the labour force who wake up everyday and go to work.
@@schrodingersferret4092 if that's what you think brainwashing is then every thought is brainwashing so then we can brainwash people from thinking one thing to another.
@@schrodingersferret4092 who said anything about people following it blindly. It's about presenting an argument on how to organise labour. You have people working at the bottom and for their entire life making what someone makes in a month or less. It's basically telling presenting an alternative to those people saying you can have a democratic workplace where you are involved and work cooperatively amongst yourselves to achieve production. Those who don't want it can keep doing what they do but you are simply presenting an alternative to the top down capitalist hierarchy. Once the alternative is presented people can choose to be part of it or not.
Interesting discussion and I have tried all aspects of the points made; I am now retired. I trained as a "Professional Engineer" in the 1970's, in the UK. On graduating, my salary was so poor that I was impoverished - my shoes were falling apart and I had to stick them with glue, my overdraft increasing month by month. There was 3 ways out 1) Go to the USA - here engineers had high respect and pay 2) Go freelance and triple your salary 3) Find a new start-up high tech firm and get shares. Initially I tried option 2, now I was OK moneywise but had no career, treated with disdain. In my prime I got sick of this, so I went to the USA, option 1. Very good, high pay and respect, but you did not work for the company, you were owned by the company and had to do as you were told, with only 5 days vacation per year. So I tried option 3 - or was offered option 3. If the start up was successful, you could become rich with the share options. Hmm what to do. I decided to carry on with option 2. Trouble is you have no career, no chance of promotion and when you reach 55, you are thrown on the scrap heap and in old age you return to poverty and live on peanuts (a pension). So in retrospect which was the best ?? I think option 3 - I had it but turned it down. The people I worked with there are now all millionaires. So the "new capitalism" spoke of with Paul Mason is the best bet. Spare me dime guv, my shoes are falling apart.
@@firstlast8081 Capitalism isn't just "the voluntary exchange of money". When talking about capitalism you have to take into account how it has mutated over time and how it expresses itself now
Wouldn’t it just be easier for the government to buy shares in the companies that operate in UK and give them to the employees at the same time as PAYE? That way they work with inward investment (by inflating the share price for companies bringing jobs to UK) and the workers get the dividends from the company and can put them in their pensions through SIPPs.
Exactly what I was thinking. From a certain amount of service shares are issued and the longer an employee has been there the more shares they're eligible for. A lot of companies offer cheap shares to employees anyway.
James Junghanns Same as would happen to normal shareholders I would imagine. Publicly traded companies are known as LLcs standing for limited liability which means that shareholders don’t carry the risk of having to front up costs if the company they invest in starts making a loss.
Good luck with giving workers a share of corporate profits without capital controls. (profits will just disappear in offshore entities charging consulting fees or something of that sort).
There is merit to this except that there is no point putting more than 2 worker members on boards, to include different unions or union and non union. Otherwise the board would be avoided by running an inner body, or else HQs would go overseas.
Dividends payments of 10% share value is pretty rare, 5% isn't too bad. Getting £500 per year would be the equivalent of having £10k in shares with a lot of companies. Why not just make it a requirement that shares are issued to employees of plcs? The longer you've been working there, the more shares. Some companies are doing that anyway or their employees can buy at a discount.
How would this be implemented with regards to a company investing in its growth? Example; a company storing or investing it's profits in order to save up for growth or other business enterprises?
I wonder if Paul Mason looks at the current state of Labour; the Left divided, Labour losing its heartlands and Scotland on the verge of Independence thus consigning Labour to the dustbin of political history and thinks ‘I did that when I populised Lexit’.
Would paying a dividend to their employees be used to reduce wages. “Yes, we know the hourly pay is crap, but you could be getting £500 quid in dividends.
Isn't the concept slightly similar to target based pay, like in street fundraising, commission per sale ? i.e increase our companies' profits more & we will pay you more ?
A better way to bring democracy to the processes of deciding what to produce, how to produce it, how much to produce, and for whom is to legislate right of first refusal for employees when any business is sold. If the employees choose to buy the business, the national government should provide an interest-free loan worth one quarter of the purchase price and provide the other three quarters as a grant. Genuine democracy must extend beyond elections. Economic democracy is essential as well. Fostering a much bigger share of employee and community-owned businesses is a major part of that.
Well whats the difference, with productivity bonus which is not capped., and this idea, at least with productivity bonus it goes directly to the employee, who works harder, rather than a less productive person, that seems fair and already takes place. So for me this idea is just a bit of a gimmick?
is grace the new joan bakewell? or is she just an emerging grace blakely? with her looks, she will do well to maintain her principles over the next 30 years. ps, john mcdonnell is the brains behind the labour party.
The worker dividend is a gimmick in cash and power terms. But it's a start. I believe workers are also allowed a (first) option on any shares as part of the manifesto? The govt needs to help workers have a larger stake in the organisations they work for. The dividend should not be used as a stealth tax to help fund the government.
That already seemingly distant time when sensible and fair ideas started to come close to the surface, already and as usual yet again pushed down by simplistic orthodoxy and manipulation of the public's perspective into lapping up that kind of clunky orthodoxy as a worthwhile narrative.
Why do we apply the double standard of blaming people themselves for when things go wrong for them - that if we applied the same circumstances to ourselves we would think we were totally blameless? I've noticed in practice - when people work for organisations that are supposed to help people in need - that this double standard attitude can basically result in administering someone's failure: that when someone seeks help, they just get a ruber stamp basically labelled "failure" and they get kicked into the gutter. Rather than putting ourselves in the shoes of someone in need and just doing what we can to help - the opposite seems to happen and we do what we can to further kick them down. This can be especially bad with medical, or welfare, or mental health services - taking the bizarre approach of applying a darwinian mentality to those who are already suffering by denying medical treatment based on spurious clinical criteria, or siding with debt companies, or blaming mental health patients for just not being rational about their problems (when they have emotional trauma perhaps). Or is it just the way I am seeing things? - I don't see it as being universal, but it certainly isn't a small problem. Anyway... ...it's as if we believe in these institutions that are there to serve people in need - but when it comes down to it, we think we are the only one's deserving.
"Forrest Gump" won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Screen Play, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects. Earned almost $700 million at the box office. I guess life is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get. Great example to try and mock me with. Obviously clumsily articulated Biff Tannen from Back to the Future is your hero and role model.
xlp3t3r really!...that’s not a good advert, choose from poverty, human rights, free press repression and freedom of speech....lets just agree that radical socialism only works in the minds of students and the liberal elite.
Thanks for saying it Paul; 'to those who don't have any basic respect for people - Fuck uou!'. I'm really pleased with McDonnell's announcement. In the context of the conditions we are in currently, in the interregnum between zombie neoliberalism and something new, this feels like a real alternative vision from labour.
Redistribution is all very well but what are you going to spend your money on if there are no consumer durables like fashion, toys and other gimmicks created and manufactured to make a few quid? Who brought us Lego, Grand Theft Auto, satnavs, the smartphone or Pokemon? A five-year economic plan which could never conceive of any such nonsenses when there are other priorities. Each according to their means excludes such fripperies. I think I would rather have rampant capitalism and a new car every three years than a holiday at a collective farm thank you.
@@jamesturner2914 ; It’s nothing to do with language James - it is literally, the ‘fuck you’ attitude. She says; “What would you say to those who argue bla bla bla ....” He says; “I would say fuck you ... bla bla bla ...” which is so weak I lost interest in anything else he had to say.
trading in uk means they should be paying taxes on the profit they make from uk citizens. currently they are able to escape paying thanks to loopholes n tax havens. Its all linked to those panama papers. uk pretends it cannot control it's offshore territories, but thats false. corbyn intends to close tax loopholes etc
@@jimmynich4791 is that the one that comes from eu? Or corbyns one? Either way, tory manifesto wants to deregulate financial industry n we know how that went last time in 2008
People working for a publicly listed company can already buy shares in their company, it doesn't depend on a government undermining property rights. Labour want employees to share all the reward but none of the risk. One thing Labour could do is encourage private companies to sell shares in the company to its employees rather than force them to give the shares
@Duck Duck Go - If you have a country whose government doesn't respect property rights, would you invest your money in a company in that country? You would be less likely to because you just don't know what the government is going to do next. You would invest in another country. This could present a real problem for UK companies seeking investment. This in turn could have an effect on people's personal investments and pensions as investors pull out their money and look for safer environments in which to invest. I'm not against share ownership schemes and think they are possibly a good idea. However, you haven't addressed the risk to reward aspect and this is another reason why I believe employees should buy the shares. That way they share in the risk as well as the reward. Lastly like lots of the proposals by Corbyn/McDonnell they affect the small much more than the big. If you'd started as a cleaner, worked day and night, lost countless nights sleep, saved everything you had, made huge sacrifices built a successful cleaning business, reached the point where you employed 250 people and then suddenly you find that the government is going to take 10% of your business away from you. How would you feel? Rich people and big businesses can always work around these type of proposals and others by Corbyn/McDonnell. They will restructure, they will reorganize and this and other proposals will create negative behaviours as they always do. Where as someone who has strived, been responsible and has more modest means, or a small company trying to compete with the big boys will suffer far more. Ultimately policies like this are great for big business as they can work around them and crush their SME competition that can't. In effect, if the system is rigged it is because of poor proposals like this which make it even harder for the hard working responsible little guy to rise. Labour would rather they look to the government for help to improve their situation than look to themselves. Labour is fast becoming the party of aspiration without perspiration.
The most important thing is protecting worker’s pay and conditions by enshrining them in law. I’m astounded at the ignorance the public have regarding my job on the railway and their negative response to strike action by hardworking men and women who are the backbone of this country as well as nurses, junior doctors, emergency services, teachers and many other professions targeted by government cuts. The greedy bosses, politicians and “consultants” who have never worked a day in their lives are constantly attacking pay and conditions in their never ending pursuit of profit in the private sector or the government’s austerity program in the public sector. Worker’s rights should be at the top of every manifesto.
OriginalJoseyWales notice how the entire concept is based on “profit” assuming it’s going to be there. People on this thread talking of Bezos billions and “the elite”. In fact the vast majority of businesses aren’t run by billionaires in jets, but by their hard working executives and often owners. Shareholders are paid dividends as a ‘return on capital’, there may be no dividends, they might see their share capital shrink, there may be further calls for funds - it’s capital at risk. Will McDonnell insist that workers share this risk too? If the business makes a loss they have to pay capital in? It’s a view of business by people who have no direct experience of it. Either trembling in their neck beards thinking any “boss” swans about at Davos. Or like the journalist in the video, who’s unlikely to have run any business of 200 employees, constantly talking of capitalism being reshaped. Like the Communists of yore, just because you can articulate an idea, it doesn’t mean you can bring it about.
Capitalism is a natural extension of Human cooperation and communication. An epiphenomena that needn't be forcefully removed, as it will, naturally, deconstruct itself in due course. Consensus gentium.
Striking at the heart of neoliberalism? argh, more hyperbole based on ignorance. Do any of these people work in real companies in the real economy? Paul Mason talking about Amazon and BMW in the same sentence about British managers. Obviously doesn't realise these aren't British companies?
Surely these two have a modicum of sense to know that Socialism will never be voted in as a system in the UK. I always find it quite the laugh that these people expend all their energy on fighting for the lost cause of socialism in this country but not one bit of energy on booking a one way plane ticket to the countless countries who have socialism as their system.
An utterly childish view of economics as ever from Mason. We have two "wokers" waffling on about ownership but neither have depended on private finance for their jobs and - shock horror wages. Mason has never got beyond second year undergraduate level - a total waste of space. Come on Mason - post your CV and then I'll decide on the worthiness of your arguments.
Ha ha! I'll start my gene editing company now instead of exploiting people in a coffee shop. It would be funny if Mason didn't actually take himself seriously.
@@elliotwilson2207 sure. off-guardian.org/tag/paul-mason/ take your pick his war lust is pretty well documented. Incredibly insightful economic commentator but ...
Will Aindow uhm yea eh, the link shows nothing of the sort mate... i mean if you said he was a useless pacifist hippie I think you'd have more of an argument
@@Patrick-jj5nh sorry pat. Off Guardian have written a lot about Paul's imperial foreign policy assertions - I assumed the link would contain them. mronline.org/2018/08/06/social-imperialism-in-the-21st-century/ this was a great article - scroll to - the NATO loving leftist. Sorry I didn't check the relevance of the initial link I was eating my tea while I sent it.
A company like Amazon is basically a Victorian style sponge of yesteryear, where the fat cats lap up all the jam and cream, their relatives get the cake, and the workers get the crumbs that fall off the table.
Amazon is the epitome of the problem
I'm with you on that! Why can't we just get rid of unethical companies like Amazon? One it's American and two it is obviously exploiting the common worker, with low wages and work practices that are ridiculous toilet breaks that are strictly timed and 20min walks to the canteen for lunch. Peeing in bottles simply because going to the toilet will take too long!
What happens when the company makes a loss? Are the workers expected to take their share of that loss from their wages?
We should be getting policy inspiration from FDR's bill of economic rights, but make it more radical because more radical is always better!
what does radical mean? FDR wasn't a socialist.
Soy Source Radical means intolerable to the power elite, i know fdr wasn't which is why I said more radical
Libertarian socialist.....oxymoron
Radical is always better? Didnt work out so great for you guys in the last election now did it mate
I like the ideas which Paul is espousing - a lot... I wonder if it addresses the issue of having a highly automated manufacturing system? If a company employs a few people to program and service machines, there are not very many employees to benefit from such a scheme...
Giving dividends to workers is all very well, but the decision-making power is still in the hands of the bosses. I prefer Labour's policy of growing the co-operative sector. Only when the economic system is democratic will we see things working for the benefit of the majority.
Time for a worker's democracy.....www.wsws.org
We need unions and workers in decision making
Why not both? I think its important to persue ideas that whilst they may fall short of what we hope to see in some hypothetical end state they are at least a step in the right direction and are possible withing the current overton window.
There should be no owners or managers, only elected representatives to form a worker’s council in order to run businesses. If business owners don’t want to sell their businesses to the state, they can move elsewhere.
Fascinating conversation Paul Mason is great
Stuart dillon - indeed. The irony is that what Paul and Labour are pushing for is progressive Capitalism, rather than state socialism (apart from water, mail and railways). It’s clever, and the CBI know it. Basically they are proposing a ‘fairer’ version of capitalism and incentivising the staff.
stakeholder capitalism
Nah he ain't Grace is quite good but
he's a clown
Hi, I run a small start-up business. The set up he describes in the first minute - how would that affect a small business like mine that is not currently making a profit? Many start-ups don't make a profit in the first years so my question is how would we attract and retain staff when they know they are not going to get a profit share and may not get one unless they stick around for some time? Employees would naturally gravitate towards companies who will be able to offer them profit shares immediately i.e. large companies
We tried this in Sweden for about 8 years. It made several large business owners leave the country. It most certainly did not give workers any influence om the companies they work for. But it did significantly slow down our economy. That particular detail is apparently very hip in the UK at the moment.
@@jaredgarbo3679 This system was in use from 1983 to 1991. Surely it is common knowledge Sweden has been deeply committed to a different kind of madness these past 30 plus years.
@@Caldermologist out of curiosity, what was the name fo the model?
I found some stuff on the Swedish pension reform model but nothing relating to what you are talking about
Sounds like a step in the right direction but 500 quid doesn't go far nowadays
Most people think of income in terms of wages. Wages are less than half of GDP. Divide GDP by the number of workers compare with average wages and you'll see how much goes elsewhere. Unless you redistribute the actual ownership you'll never get anywhere.
I say you tie minimum and maximum income. You set a maximum income and increase above that increases the minimum income by a certain percentage.
Well let the owners leave, the workers will have to stay and have to keep running this shit anyway to keep life going and why would we send the product of our labor to them? Maybe we would get a chance to restructure this shit a little so it maybe wouldn't be quite so shit anymore. We can work out how many person-hours maintaining this society and life takes, and divide it up as we democratically see fit. We can all figure out how much of our lives we want to be dedicating to maintaining society, and it would be in the interest of us all to improve technology and tools to reduce the work required from all. If we get to democratically decide, we can just decide to organize according to "efficiency in human time spent on work to provide a good life for everybody". If you can't decide this fundamental in life within your society, then maybe your society isn't quite as democratic as you might think.
@@schrodingersferret4092 it's not about brainwashing anyone, it's simply about changing how people think about labour. You don't have to convert the jihadi in Iraq or you neighbour next door since you already have enough people already in the labour force who wake up everyday and go to work.
@@schrodingersferret4092 if that's what you think brainwashing is then every thought is brainwashing so then we can brainwash people from thinking one thing to another.
@@schrodingersferret4092 well then it's not l problem, people just have to be brainwashed again.
@@schrodingersferret4092 who said anything about people following it blindly. It's about presenting an argument on how to organise labour. You have people working at the bottom and for their entire life making what someone makes in a month or less. It's basically telling presenting an alternative to those people saying you can have a democratic workplace where you are involved and work cooperatively amongst yourselves to achieve production.
Those who don't want it can keep doing what they do but you are simply presenting an alternative to the top down capitalist hierarchy. Once the alternative is presented people can choose to be part of it or not.
Interesting discussion and I have tried all aspects of the points made; I am now retired. I trained as a "Professional Engineer" in the 1970's, in the UK. On graduating, my salary was so poor that I was impoverished - my shoes were falling apart and I had to stick them with glue, my overdraft increasing month by month. There was 3 ways out 1) Go to the USA - here engineers had high respect and pay 2) Go freelance and triple your salary 3) Find a new start-up high tech firm and get shares. Initially I tried option 2, now I was OK moneywise but had no career, treated with disdain. In my prime I got sick of this, so I went to the USA, option 1. Very good, high pay and respect, but you did not work for the company, you were owned by the company and had to do as you were told, with only 5 days vacation per year. So I tried option 3 - or was offered option 3. If the start up was successful, you could become rich with the share options. Hmm what to do. I decided to carry on with option 2. Trouble is you have no career, no chance of promotion and when you reach 55, you are thrown on the scrap heap and in old age you return to poverty and live on peanuts (a pension). So in retrospect which was the best ?? I think option 3 - I had it but turned it down. The people I worked with there are now all millionaires. So the "new capitalism" spoke of with Paul Mason is the best bet. Spare me dime guv, my shoes are falling apart.
haha great ending, harsh but true, a very fitting analysis
Capitalism is the crisis!!!!
This policy comes across as pretty meek liberalism
Capitalism means voluntary exchanging money so saying capitalism is a crisis is saying voluntarily exchanging money is a crisis
At ground zero the first person who barters a leg of mutton for a bag of apples has created the crisis of capitalism.
We're all in crisis
@@firstlast8081 Capitalism isn't just "the voluntary exchange of money". When talking about capitalism you have to take into account how it has mutated over time and how it expresses itself now
Success is what you achieve.
If your action suceed in disobeying what was held yogether you got terrain.
John McDonnell's speech was one of the best I've heard in years.
Wouldn’t it just be easier for the government to buy shares in the companies that operate in UK and give them to the employees at the same time as PAYE? That way they work with inward investment (by inflating the share price for companies bringing jobs to UK) and the workers get the dividends from the company and can put them in their pensions through SIPPs.
Exactly what I was thinking. From a certain amount of service shares are issued and the longer an employee has been there the more shares they're eligible for. A lot of companies offer cheap shares to employees anyway.
Paul Mason's Postcapitalism is well worth a read if you haven't already.
What happens when the firm makes a loss? Genuine question.
James Junghanns Same as would happen to normal shareholders I would imagine. Publicly traded companies are known as LLcs standing for limited liability which means that shareholders don’t carry the risk of having to front up costs if the company they invest in starts making a loss.
Wow that worked well with the electorate 😂😂
I just punched myself in the balls, so the joke's on you!
Good luck with giving workers a share of corporate profits without capital controls. (profits will just disappear in offshore entities charging consulting fees or something of that sort).
‘And what do you say to people who disagree’ ‘fuck you... you’re racist’ well done Paul... you genius
Paul is such a daddy
There is merit to this except that there is no point putting more than 2 worker members on boards, to include different unions or union and non union. Otherwise the board would be avoided by running an inner body, or else HQs would go overseas.
I love how he says amount
not all companies pay dividends
Dividends payments of 10% share value is pretty rare, 5% isn't too bad. Getting £500 per year would be the equivalent of having £10k in shares with a lot of companies. Why not just make it a requirement that shares are issued to employees of plcs? The longer you've been working there, the more shares. Some companies are doing that anyway or their employees can buy at a discount.
The system has been moribund for a long time.Time for substantial change.Tories have become an irrelevance which is why the over 60's support them.
Excellent.
I love this idea!!
How would this be implemented with regards to a company investing in its growth? Example; a company storing or investing it's profits in order to save up for growth or other business enterprises?
Bloody hell, this video feels very relevant now, post covid, during the Ukraine war, with the tories in power.
I wonder if Paul Mason looks at the current state of Labour; the Left divided, Labour losing its heartlands and Scotland on the verge of Independence thus consigning Labour to the dustbin of political history and thinks ‘I did that when I populised Lexit’.
Would paying a dividend to their employees be used to reduce wages. “Yes, we know the hourly pay is crap, but you could be getting £500 quid in dividends.
Isn't the concept slightly similar to target based pay, like in street fundraising, commission per sale ? i.e increase our companies' profits more & we will pay you more ?
A better way to bring democracy to the processes of deciding what to produce, how to produce it, how much to produce, and for whom is to legislate right of first refusal for employees when any business is sold. If the employees choose to buy the business, the national government should provide an interest-free loan worth one quarter of the purchase price and provide the other three quarters as a grant.
Genuine democracy must extend beyond elections. Economic democracy is essential as well. Fostering a much bigger share of employee and community-owned businesses is a major part of that.
Well whats the difference, with productivity bonus which is not capped., and this idea, at least with productivity bonus it goes directly to the employee, who works harder, rather than a less productive person, that seems fair and already takes place. So for me this idea is just a bit of a gimmick?
Never going to read New Statesman after seeing Grace's ignorance on Question Time.
Care to elaborate
What deal?
160 comments and not one on how hot Grace is looking ? Check yourselves.
That's what I was asking myself. You know, "Am I the only person here that fell in love with that beautiful young lady?"
is grace the new joan bakewell? or is she just an emerging grace blakely?
with her looks, she will do well to maintain her principles over the next 30 years.
ps, john mcdonnell is the brains behind the labour party.
Monopolies should be nationalized and non-profit.
The worker dividend is a gimmick in cash and power terms. But it's a start. I believe workers are also allowed a (first) option on any shares as part of the manifesto? The govt needs to help workers have a larger stake in the organisations they work for. The dividend should not be used as a stealth tax to help fund the government.
That already seemingly distant time when sensible and fair ideas started to come close to the surface, already and as usual yet again pushed down by simplistic orthodoxy and manipulation of the public's perspective into lapping up that kind of clunky orthodoxy as a worthwhile narrative.
Why do we apply the double standard of blaming people themselves for when things go wrong for them - that if we applied the same circumstances to ourselves we would think we were totally blameless? I've noticed in practice - when people work for organisations that are supposed to help people in need - that this double standard attitude can basically result in administering someone's failure: that when someone seeks help, they just get a ruber stamp basically labelled "failure" and they get kicked into the gutter. Rather than putting ourselves in the shoes of someone in need and just doing what we can to help - the opposite seems to happen and we do what we can to further kick them down. This can be especially bad with medical, or welfare, or mental health services - taking the bizarre approach of applying a darwinian mentality to those who are already suffering by denying medical treatment based on spurious clinical criteria, or siding with debt companies, or blaming mental health patients for just not being rational about their problems (when they have emotional trauma perhaps). Or is it just the way I am seeing things? - I don't see it as being universal, but it certainly isn't a small problem. Anyway... ...it's as if we believe in these institutions that are there to serve people in need - but when it comes down to it, we think we are the only one's deserving.
Was the sci-fi film "event horizon" intentionally bad? - like your comment is.
"Forrest Gump" won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Screen Play, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects. Earned almost $700 million at the box office. I guess life is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get. Great example to try and mock me with. Obviously clumsily articulated Biff Tannen from Back to the Future is your hero and role model.
Can anyone point to a country where this type of socialism has worked in practice?
xlp3t3r Cuba
xlp3t3r really!...that’s not a good advert, choose from poverty, human rights, free press repression and freedom of speech....lets just agree that radical socialism only works in the minds of students and the liberal elite.
Thanks for saying it Paul; 'to those who don't have any basic respect for people - Fuck uou!'. I'm really pleased with McDonnell's announcement. In the context of the conditions we are in currently, in the interregnum between zombie neoliberalism and something new, this feels like a real alternative vision from labour.
Mason couldn't be more clear he wants to save capitalism rather than replace it.
Brilliant
i thought i was clicking in a video with Jordan Peterson....
Grace would be a great labour MP 😊
Many workers already have this. It's called a bonus
Come on when you have amazon makeing billions you cant tell me if he gave 100 million into extra wages he still going to have alot of money
9:38 "They're just digging the grave..."
Redistribution is all very well but what are you going to spend your money on if there are no consumer durables like fashion, toys and other gimmicks created and manufactured to make a few quid? Who brought us Lego, Grand Theft Auto, satnavs, the smartphone or Pokemon? A five-year economic plan which could never conceive of any such nonsenses when there are other priorities. Each according to their means excludes such fripperies. I think I would rather have rampant capitalism and a new car every three years than a holiday at a collective farm thank you.
social enterprise is the way to go for me
Yes Paul go off king
I was really coming on board there... and then we got to 08:25
If language offends you, then you really do sit in a place of security.
@@jamesturner2914 ; It’s nothing to do with language James - it is literally, the ‘fuck you’ attitude.
She says; “What would you say to those who argue bla bla bla ....”
He says; “I would say fuck you ... bla bla bla ...” which is so weak I lost interest in anything else he had to say.
What Replaces Capitalism? Futarchy and Digital Autonomous Corporations obviously.
Nothing at all. They are just so far off the mark. When we are ready, there won't be any corporations.
This is so dumb there is nothing stopping workers buying stocks and shares
what about the unemployed
great guy!
Ahhhhhh this will lead to gulaggggs! We're all going to dieeee!
how will this force Amazon, a US listed firm to do anything? Such baseless claims being made in this interview.
trading in uk means they should be paying taxes on the profit they make from uk citizens. currently they are able to escape paying thanks to loopholes n tax havens. Its all linked to those panama papers. uk pretends it cannot control it's offshore territories, but thats false. corbyn intends to close tax loopholes etc
@@kimwarburton8490 I forget what it's called but there's already a plan underway to combat off shore tax evasion. Whether it works or not we'll see.
@@jimmynich4791 is that the one that comes from eu? Or corbyns one?
Either way, tory manifesto wants to deregulate financial industry n we know how that went last time in 2008
@@kimwarburton8490 It comes from more countries than the EU. I'm not sure when they plan to set it in motion. I'll look it up.
People working for a publicly listed company can already buy shares in their company, it doesn't depend on a government undermining property rights. Labour want employees to share all the reward but none of the risk. One thing Labour could do is encourage private companies to sell shares in the company to its employees rather than force them to give the shares
@Duck Duck Go - If you have a country whose government doesn't respect property rights, would you invest your money in a company in that country? You would be less likely to because you just don't know what the government is going to do next. You would invest in another country. This could present a real problem for UK companies seeking investment. This in turn could have an effect on people's personal investments and pensions as investors pull out their money and look for safer environments in which to invest.
I'm not against share ownership schemes and think they are possibly a good idea. However, you haven't addressed the risk to reward aspect and this is another reason why I believe employees should buy the shares. That way they share in the risk as well as the reward.
Lastly like lots of the proposals by Corbyn/McDonnell they affect the small much more than the big. If you'd started as a cleaner, worked day and night, lost countless nights sleep, saved everything you had, made huge sacrifices built a successful cleaning business, reached the point where you employed 250 people and then suddenly you find that the government is going to take 10% of your business away from you. How would you feel?
Rich people and big businesses can always work around these type of proposals and others by Corbyn/McDonnell. They will restructure, they will reorganize and this and other proposals will create negative behaviours as they always do. Where as someone who has strived, been responsible and has more modest means, or a small company trying to compete with the big boys will suffer far more. Ultimately policies like this are great for big business as they can work around them and crush their SME competition that can't. In effect, if the system is rigged it is because of poor proposals like this which make it even harder for the hard working responsible little guy to rise. Labour would rather they look to the government for help to improve their situation than look to themselves.
Labour is fast becoming the party of aspiration without perspiration.
The most important thing is protecting worker’s pay and conditions by enshrining them in law. I’m astounded at the ignorance the public have regarding my job on the railway and their negative response to strike action by hardworking men and women who are the backbone of this country as well as nurses, junior doctors, emergency services, teachers and many other professions targeted by government cuts. The greedy bosses, politicians and “consultants” who have never worked a day in their lives are constantly attacking pay and conditions in their never ending pursuit of profit in the private sector or the government’s austerity program in the public sector. Worker’s rights should be at the top of every manifesto.
Its not a new form of capitalism - it is age old socialism.
Is it now?
You don't say
Its not a new form of capitalism - it is age old socialism.
OriginalJoseyWales notice how the entire concept is based on “profit” assuming it’s going to be there. People on this thread talking of Bezos billions and “the elite”. In fact the vast majority of businesses aren’t run by billionaires in jets, but by their hard working executives and often owners.
Shareholders are paid dividends as a ‘return on capital’, there may be no dividends, they might see their share capital shrink, there may be further calls for funds - it’s capital at risk. Will McDonnell insist that workers share this risk too? If the business makes a loss they have to pay capital in?
It’s a view of business by people who have no direct experience of it. Either trembling in their neck beards thinking any “boss” swans about at Davos. Or like the journalist in the video, who’s unlikely to have run any business of 200 employees, constantly talking of capitalism being reshaped. Like the Communists of yore, just because you can articulate an idea, it doesn’t mean you can bring it about.
Message from the future, no one believed you!
Soz.
I really liked you on news night too😔
Awwww the French... oh wait not that Paul Mason.
More to the point -what replaces Paul Mason?
i want to be a communist too.
How utterly irrelevant this looks 2 years later
Shared prosperity? ...Oh god no, we must stop it in its tracks! ...Smithers -- Release the hounds!
She need contact with putin
Anarchism.
Capitalism is a natural extension of Human cooperation and communication. An epiphenomena that needn't be forcefully removed, as it will, naturally, deconstruct itself in due course. Consensus gentium.
CAPITALISM ? = YOU HAVE TO WALK YOUR DOG.
SOCIALISM ? = THINGS BECOME SO BAD THAT YOU HAVE TO EAT YOUR DOG!!!
The Venus Project within Anarchist principles.
Striking at the heart of neoliberalism? argh, more hyperbole based on ignorance. Do any of these people work in real companies in the real economy? Paul Mason talking about Amazon and BMW in the same sentence about British managers. Obviously doesn't realise these aren't British companies?
Great insight Paul! I hope I can retain this example for eeeediats that do not understand socialist policy. #JC4PM
How did the election go Blakeley 😂😂😂😂
Grace... Just saw you on the news trying to talk politics lol! Go back to singing and playing the guitar hippy! Lol
Surely these two have a modicum of sense to know that Socialism will never be voted in as a system in the UK. I always find it quite the laugh that these people expend all their energy on fighting for the lost cause of socialism in this country but not one bit of energy on booking a one way plane ticket to the countless countries who have socialism as their system.
An utterly childish view of economics as ever from Mason.
We have two "wokers" waffling on about ownership but neither have depended on private finance for their jobs and - shock horror wages.
Mason has never got beyond second year undergraduate level - a total waste of space.
Come on Mason - post your CV and then I'll decide on the worthiness of your arguments.
Lol
Ha ha! I'll start my gene editing company now instead of exploiting people in a coffee shop. It would be funny if Mason didn't actually take himself seriously.
Outrageous twaddle
Then you go and spoil it by doing something stupid like...interviewing imperial mouthpiece Paul Mason.
What the heck are you talking about, example please?
@@elliotwilson2207 sure. off-guardian.org/tag/paul-mason/ take your pick his war lust is pretty well documented. Incredibly insightful economic commentator but ...
Will Aindow uhm yea eh, the link shows nothing of the sort mate... i mean if you said he was a useless pacifist hippie I think you'd have more of an argument
@@Patrick-jj5nh sorry pat. Off Guardian have written a lot about Paul's imperial foreign policy assertions - I assumed the link would contain them. mronline.org/2018/08/06/social-imperialism-in-the-21st-century/ this was a great article - scroll to - the NATO loving leftist. Sorry I didn't check the relevance of the initial link I was eating my tea while I sent it.
Why the hell does he keep going on about 2008. Another left wing extremist stuck in the past!
Grace is a simple irritation and record on repeat.