. . Subject: Will 'profit /divided-by/ persons' end imperialism ? . . . . . The difference between a cooperative corporation and a tyrannical one is that profits are shared in the first, and accumulated in the second. Therefore the cooperative corporation will only want to grow if it wants to maximize profits (which is natural) if the next person will cause corporation profit to rise more then the other employees on average cause them to rise. If the next would be collegue causes fewer profits then the existing persons on average cause profits, then the people in the corporation would lose money from having more people, because the profit is divided. For the business tyrant the story is different: the tyrant only has to make sure the next employee causes profits to rise more then that employee costs in wages and other costs. Wages are kept low, profits rise and are skimmed by the tyrant. This means the tyrant would also hire people if they do not cause corporate profit to rise more per person working in the corporation. The other persons in the corporation are made impervious to the issue by keeping their wage constant regardless of more hiring or not. The closer the wage to the average profit, the smaller the difference between the cooperative and the tyranny in terms of growing will. Example: a citywide bike package delivering company, they bring around packages for a price per distance (a simple company with relatively few costs and capital goods). Say they are with 100 people, and they share the profit. Say they have had 2 000 000 in profit in one year (20 000 a year a person, a moderate success I guess). However they seem to be at the stretch of the market. They do not often have to turn costumers away because they are overrun with demand, but it happens sometimes. Should this cooperative hire if they want more profit ? If it was a tiranny, every person would take home per year only 15 000 a year, 5 000 per year is for the dictator / boss, who thinks he is the big owner and he is god and he is everything. nevermind that everyone else does all the work: he is boss and he is god. If you don't do what he says, you're an asshole and fired. Didn't he start the business ? Wasn't he the first ? Who else could have done that, right ? He doesn't tell anyone he got a head start from his business boss his nephew, with capital and demands for sending flowers from his nephew his flower shop, at least not when he tells the story of the grandiose start of his corporation, when he booted himself out of nothing to something. Note how this way the petty bourgeois networks work themselves up this way. Should this tyranny hire if he wants more profit ? The next person/employee would likely not make as much money, not because he/she works more/less (maybe works 3 times better), but because there isn't as much demand per person/employee anymore, when divided per 101 persons; the market just isn't big enough to give everyone work 5 days a week 8 hours a day (or whatever is full employement). (In this example taxes are ignored and irrelevant anyway.) In the cooperative, if the next person does not make more then 20 000,- a year, the corporation will not profit more. If it is less then 20 000,- they will lose money. There needs to be another 20 000,- or more demand in the market (maybe they hope to get more demand on slow days if they can always deliver even on the busy days by never turning costumers away, causing their name to shine brighter). In the tyranny the next employee only has to cause more then 15 000,- a year in profit. If it is less then that, after all, the dictator will get fewer money out of that employee then he has to pay him in a salary, thus losses result. Say the next employee would generate another 18 000,- a year (or better: the 101 person company has a total of 2 018 000,- in yearly profit, it isn't due to that one person who may be making 40 000 a year in this example, it is a matter of market share, in this case at least). The cooperative would not hire, unless everyone wants to lose money. They would lose: 2 018 000 / 101 = 19 980,- ---> 20 000 - 19 980 = 20,- a year. Certainly not much, but still. Hiring 10 more persons at a lower total profitability would already cause 200,- which starts to become significant. This is also harder on smaller companies obviously. If it was a 10 person company and the profit would be 20 000 a person, total 200.000,- a year. 200 000 + 18 000 = 218 000,- ---> 218 000 / 11 = 19 818,- 20 000 - 19 818 = 182,- Same total profitability increase for one additional person causes a 182,- drop in profit per person on a 10 person company. The tyranny would hire: the profit of the dictator rise by 300,- 18 000 - 15 000 (wage) = 300,- In the 'wage : average-profit' gap, the tyranny grows while the cooperative shrinks. This can also happen for whole nations. If they are dictatorships, in the main the central boss will even manage to suck wealth from the poorest of regions. But in a democracy there is no profit accumulation for one boss, but the taxes are shared by all, and should flow back to all. A region with poor people is likely to cost more then it brings in in taxes. Therefore a nation only has a financial interest in conquesting richer regions. That means fewer reasons for imperialism.