[ronimacarroni]

Well I'm no expert on socialism so correct me if I'm wrong.
But to me socialism seems to have been originally intended to have been about handing the means of productions to workers and organizing for the transition.
As opposed to the government controlling the means of production and claiming its doing so on behalf of the people.
For instance a socialist government should redistribute land to farm workers and give them resources for them to know how to cultivate the land and manage it.
Instead of forcing people to work the land or being threatened to be sent to the gulag.
The reason why lenin introduced the concept of a commandeer economy was because Russia was mostly rural and lagged behind developed countries, so he was in a hurry to modernize Russia.

[Kman]

do modern corporations only deduct from workers wages a contribution to cover their own costs or do they pay workers the market value for their labour.

It is the same thing you are talking about, businesses take out a certain amount of profits from a workers production in order to pay for administration of the business and the loans and other costs a factory owner typically has, the remaining value being produced is the market value of a laborer, the remainder is what said worker will roughly get in reward for his efforts. The market value for labour is the value of their production - costs.

If they pay workers the market wage the wage the worker receives has no relation to the value they added to the product. Einstien was surely right here.

This makes no sense, market value of a worker is determined by how much value a worker creates in terms of income for the factory.

I think it is possible to show both that productive capacity is becoming concentrated within multinational companies and that the rewards are amassing to a relatively small number of people.

That has nothing to do with capitalism though, that is caused by socialist interventions and bureaucratism that makes life as a small company very hard since they dont have the benefits of scale that bureaucratic rules alone reward.

its not clear why consumers should have to choose products in order to regulate companies when its often unclear to consumers for example hwo products are made. for example what are the environmental costs of carbon emitting industry. people could choose to set up consumer co-ops and circulate statistics on CO2 usage in industry but they choose to elect officials with planning powers - its a better use of everyone time. people like shopping they don't want to spend their whole lives doing it.

Lets ignore carbon emissions because that is a bullshit science that is not proven, let us instead use the example of some other type of pollution, if a company emits too much pollution that harms other peoples property then said company will have to pay reperations to the victims, reperations cost money and will raise the costs of their products, that way you can see just how much harm the company is doing with its product production by how expensive the product is, you wont be able to see exactly what ratio the pollution factor is but pollution costs to society is calculated in a capitalist price. People dont need to spend any time researching products in order for polluting companies to be outcompeted by non-polluting companies, they just have to buy the product with the best price/quality ratio, something that people do naturally anyways when shopping.

[ronimacarroni]

That has nothing to do with capitalism though, that is caused by socialist interventions and bureaucratism that makes life as a small company very hard since they dont have the benefits of scale that bureaucratic rules alone reward.

Starting a business in the US is pretty easy.
You can become an LLC by just filing an mailing a paper.

[Kman]

Starting a business in the US is pretty easy.
You can become an LLC by just filing an mailing a paper.

Well many business sectors are highly regulated, I listen to a lot of podcasts by Peter Schiff who owns an investment company that manages around 1 billion dollars worth of assets, he says that the regulatory code has exploded in the financial sector and that has made it very hard to survive as a "small" company (compared to entities like Goldman Sachs for example), he has explained how he would have never been able to start his company with the massive regulatory burden that exists now in the financial sector, he started his company as a 1-man operation, cold calling potential customers, you cannot do that anymore, you cannot start a new financial company because you need a large staff to comply with regulations, this means that established firms like Goldman Sachs face much less competition from new firms IE you see the effect that you are talking about where small companies disappear and massive companies stay, not because of free market forces but because of government regulation.
The same thing goes on in many other sectors also where patent wars and legal bullshit take up huge amounts of resources, Apple spends more on useless legal bullshit than they do on R&D.

[ronimacarroni]

Well I guess finance companies do face more regulations because of the dodd frank.
Still, I mean finance companies do tend to have a lot of capital so I think being able to afford accountants or lawyers is not a make or break kind of deal.
Also we've already given finance companies freedom and they have abused it.
You know with the libor scandal, their use of derivatives to sell toxic assets and the countless ponzi schemes.