Quote (NtG)
The reason someone got to be a Boss is because they probably worked their ass off to get to that position, If the employees know whats good for them, they too would work their ass off and get promotions. Thats how the world works.
See, you completely missed my point. I think you should go and read a bit about worker cooperatives. Worker co-ops are run equally and democratically by their workers who are all also equal owners. Co-ops are sort of like large partnerships, some with upwards of 7000 members. The largest worker co-op is a network of cooperatives called Mondragon that constitutes over 90,000 worker-owners. There are no bosses. If a job requires some form of management, the management position is rotated throughout the workforce on a regular basis. No one is required to do jobs they don't feel comfortable doing, nor do any serious issues arise of people being paid the same as "less skilled" workers and getting upset because of it. Co-ops around the world employ more people than any other form of business, they pay better and/or have better benefits for their workers, and they are by-and-large more productive than hierarchical businesses. The corporate structure, which you described in the above quoted paragraph, is absolutely not "the way the world works". It is quite the opposite. It is actually an aberration. Nowhere in the world other than the US are wealth gaps between owners, CEO's, upper level employees, etc. and lower level employees so wide. Only in the US are worker co-ops so uncommon (a total of just shy of 2,000 people in the US work in co-ops as compared to 800 million worldwide). There has been a recent push from many directions to implement
Self-management both within existing firms and in creating new firms in the US for the past several years because everyone is starting to recognize that on top of them distributing power equally to all employees and allowing the workers the full product of their labor, they are also more productive.
Quote (NtG)
Indentured servants agreed to be servants in exchange for a ride to "the new world" across the atlantic. How is that slavery? It is a prime example of exchanging goods (boat ride across the ocean) for services.
Maybe some. Most indentured servants signed contracts to work in order to pay off debts, often to the individuals that they owed the debt to because of ridiculous rent, interest, loan, etc., charges because they were using property that belonged to that person, such as borrowing money from them, land, or means of production. I'm for either common ownership or some form of non-ownership control of means of production and redistribution of wealth, including land, to make it so that labor lays immediate claim to property, or as we anarchists call it, possession, which involves both occupation and use.
Quote (abanks)
so do you recommend that the employer split his earnings 50/50? do you expect all boss's on earth to be naive and hope that his employees wont rip him off?
No, I propose we erect more businesses that don't have bosses, eventually making the hierarchical structure in which bosses dictate to workers how to work obsolete. Read up on worker co-operatives, collectives, and the workers' self-management movement in argentina. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Also check the thread I just made in the politics forum on the productivity of worker co-ops.
Quote (abanks)
dude i agree in some parts of the world work force is shit but in the states you work for someone and you get a pretty fair pay check and the size of it is smaller/larger depending on what you do.
While that is a factor, it isn't so much how much money we make that I am worried about. It's the fact that owners and other bosses have authority over their workers economically and over their labor; the fact that workers are excluded from the decision making process; and on top of all that, the fact that the structure of the business makes it completely impossible for the employee to reap 100% of the benefits of their labor. As for the US, I agree and disagree with you. It is true that we have much better working conditions than many parts of the world and that we are paid better than, for example, people in third world nations and so-called state socialist countries. However, 1. there are a lot of poor and unemployed people in the US, mainly because wealth gaps between upper management and lower levels of industry are appallingly wide and there are other countries, such as Sweden, where people are paid much more fairly and wealth gaps are much closer, and 2. the improved working conditions you speak of, for the most part, were hard fought and won by socialist movements like the union movement of times past. Examples include the end of child labor, the 8 hour workday, work and pay equality for women, etc. These are all only guaranteed by law. Private businesses alone do not ensure these things. Workplace democracy alone, however, would help ensure them.
Quote (abanks)
You seem to be fighting for something that does not need fighting for dude.
To the slaves who saw improvements in their slave conditions gradually over the years though they were not freed, the abolition of slavery seemed "something that does not need fighting for".
Quote (J-Breakz)
look, the wage slavery concept pretty much stems from the attitude that somebody owes you more than what you have right now. From the moment you are born nobody owes you shit. Why should an employer pay you more for a job when another person is offering to do the job for less? that's why your ideas and philosophy require govn't, because you don't believe in free trade.
You're right, no one owes you shit. However, people should be entitled to the full product of their labor. As for free trade, I have a pretty new and compex, yet, I feel, logical new valuation theory in which money would be non-transferable and handled in such a way that trade would have to be handled without the use of money (ie: I'll trade you my antique for yours). Sure, I oppose free trade in the sense you describe it when it comes to my system, however 1. there are many anarchist concepts that I am ok with that fall under socialist (anti-propertarian) anarchism that are completely compatible with free trade, and 2. I don't feel the world will become a terrible place without free trade. I also don't think freedoms are in any way restricted. It's just that the monetary system would shift the manner in which we trade amongst each other. And again, I'm an anarchist. I don't oppose government. I oppose authority. The definition of "government" you are referring to is not inherently authoritative.
Quote (J-Breakz)
A self management whatever u call it company and a traditionally structured company isn't that different at all. The only real difference is you have less workers with more work and more things to handle in return for a higher wage. And thats difficult. Management problems are quite common in businesses. I know in my work, people are aways bitching because drills and monitors and computers are taken and moved around by different people in different departments with no one really taking initiative with properly managing inventory and tools.
that dusnt mean it's not possible, just that things have become more complicated.
Well, all I know is that stats I have recently stumbled upon show that co-ops are more productive on average in the short run, and at least as productive in the long run. And co-ops aren't necessarily un-managed, they just employ unique management techniques such as rotating management. They don't name anyone managers or pay them more for being managers.
i'd love to go to sweden, sweden was ranked as the 3rd best country in the world 
