• Chriskmee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The owner at the very least risked a lot of time and money to get the business going, and it would have been a while before they hired someone else to do the job. It’s not like they just sat back and did nothing.

    The owner took on 100x+ the risk any employee is, should they not get rewarded for taking that risk?

    I mean, co-ops and governments all over the world already do it, so yes, I don’t see why it would suddenly stop working.

    On a very small scale they sometimes work, when they get larger scale they usually have a CEO and upper management like any other business. In the end it’s really not that different. Look at REI for example, it’s a co-op, has a CEO, and at least in my area has pretty average pay and benefits. They have laid off people recently due to profit concerns, and have ok ratings on job sites. What is the advantage to these exactly?

    These ideas not untested, however - many countries implement some component of worker ownership and state planning into their economy at all kinds of different scales

    Can you give me the best example of a current city, country, or whatever that is closest to what you think is best for the US to change to?

    • jack [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      The owner at the very least risked a lot of time and money to get the business going, and it would have been a while before they hired someone else to do the job. It’s not like they just sat back and did nothing.

      This is absolutely not always the case. Many businesses (most, I’d bet) predate their current owner. And what is the risk? I don’t get why this obsession with undefined “risk” is so important. What’s the absolute worst case scenario? Their business shuts down and they have to go work for a wage like everyone else?

      On a very small scale they sometimes work, when they get larger scale they usually have a CEO and upper management like any other business. In the end it’s really not that different. Look at REI for example, it’s a co-op, has a CEO, and at least in my area has pretty average pay and benefits. They have laid off people recently due to profit concerns, and have ok ratings on job sites. What is the advantage to these exactly?

      REI is a consumer co-op, not a worker co-op, and that’s mostly just a marketing gimmick. If you go to the store, you can pay $20 to become a “Co-op Member” for life and get discounts. I’m talking about worker co-ops, where the ownership and operation of the firm is shared among its employees. There are shitloads of these at small scales, but there are a few big ones - Mondragon and others in Spain, Uralungal in India, Huawei in China, etc. In my city, the largest industrial laundry operation is a worker co-op, and they have a practice of providing capital and expertise to other local businesses to convert into co-ops. However, it should be noted that the conditions for a worker co-op in capitalism are very different than they would be under socialism. In capitalism, they are at a competitive disadvantage on the market, because they will pay their workers more and thus have tighter margins. In socialism, that’s not an issue.

      Can you give me the best example of a current city, country, or whatever that is closest to what you think is best for the US to change to?

      Economically, China, Cuba, and Vietnam operate under Marxist governments using different approaches to planned economies that place a large emphasis on worker power within businesses. It’s been enormously successful for all of their development and quality of life. You could look at a number of Latin American countries where socialist parties contest with liberal/capitalist parties in electoral politics and see the success they tend to have under the more left wing governments. Here, Bolivia is an excellent example. They’ve had a socialist party (MAS) in power for over a decade and quality of life, life expectancy, poverty levels, literacy, public health, and education have all improved dramatically. But they are not truly a socialist country (even in the restricted sense of the explicitly Marxist states I mentioned above) because they still operate in a mixed economy where the capitalist class wields massive economic and political power, and the socialist parties in power work to restrain the capitalists and build alternative models. Nowhere on earth aiming for socialism isn’t in a process of active struggle against the global capitalist powers-that-be, and that struggle looks very different under different circumstances. I don’t just want the US to change to the Chinese model or something, but I do want an economic model much closer to the examples I’ve given here, though substantially adjusted to the conditions of the US (and the need for the US to make reparations for imperialism).

      • Chriskmee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t get why this obsession with undefined “risk” is so important. What’s the absolute worst case scenario? Their business shuts down and they have to go work for a wage like everyone else?

        The risk is losing their life savings or having debt the likes of which makes your student debt look like nothing. If the risk means nothing to you, you should try it, make a great business that follows your ideals, and if you fail no big deal, right?

        Economically, China, Cuba, and Vietnam operate under Marxist governments using different approaches to planned economies that place a large emphasis on worker power within businesses

        As I suspected, your examples are of countries that are not exactly great places to live, and where US companies go to get the cheapest labor they can. They have worse workers rights than the US

        Nowhere on earth aiming for socialism isn’t in a process of active struggle against the global capitalist powers-that-be, and that struggle looks very different under different circumstances

        It sounds like we really shouldn’t be trying for that if it only works when everyone does it. It’s one thing to try and change a country, but to change the whole world? Might as well be impossible.

        I don’t just want the US to change to the Chinese model or something, but I do want an economic model much closer to the examples I’ve given here, though substantially adjusted to the conditions of the US (and the need for the US to make reparations for imperialism).

        I just can’t picture how that would look though, which is why I asked for the examples. It sounds like there really isn’t a great example of where you think the US should go?

          • Chriskmee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Retirement is based on stocks, it’s how it is and has been for pensions and 401k plans since forever.