Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Businesses exist to make a profit for the owners of the business. No profit and you shut the doors. There are lots of businesses that compensate employees well and give employees an ownership stake to motivate them. Every tech startup I’ve done in my career uses that model. Of course, you have to be good enough to hire into a business like that. If your job skills are limited to flipping burgers and pushing a mop, you don’t get to play that game.
Businesses exist to make a profit for the owners of the business. No profit and you shut the doors. There are lots of businesses that compensate employees well and give employees an ownership stake to motivate them. Every tech startup I’ve done in my career uses that model. Of course, you have to be good enough to hire into a business like that. If your job skills are limited to flipping burgers and pushing a mop, you don’t get to play that game.
You have a very narrow understanding of what a company is, especially compared to a union.
Seeing companies as production centers (regardless of what they do) can disconnect the labor aspect of work and the legal aspect (forming a corporation that spans multiple locations).
Ownership and private ownership also come into play here, with all capital being owned by a few and labor therefore being controlled by external needs (needs of the owners, not the workers). In all industries, from manufacturing, to programming, to IP design, cooperative work is the basis of progress.
Having profit demands run the company usually exist on the basis that the shareholders will get richer and workers get compensated for giving up freedom of input and say in production. The authoritarian model you are use to, even in start-ups, considers production not as a tool to benefit costumers or workers, but as a tool to expand market share.
Even for profit cooperatives like evergreen and Mondragon don't follow such rigid ideologies as they exist to create wealth for the workers by the workers.
Private capitalist only exist to funnel capital to themselves, they don't exist to provide for everyone. Real sustainable models require costumer and worker development of a union (company) such as in electric power grid supply (not the private ones like pepco) https://www.electric.coop/on-the-issues/power-supply/
Even the entertainment industry would benefit as designers, programmers, and workers of all stripes and colors would work on a system of sharing without the necessary growth models to stay alive (as they don't answer to shareholders or land lords). Basing companies on personal ownership rather than private control gives everyone a say, and each different work place would not exist under the same rule.
I hope tech start ups would turn away from the destructive vulture capitalist path they're going down. They are no different today than wall street in business matters of affects on our economy.
You have a very narrow understanding of what a company is, especially compared to a union.
Seeing companies as production centers (regardless of what they do) can disconnect the labor aspect of work and the legal aspect (forming a corporation that spans multiple locations).
Ownership and private ownership also come into play here, with all capital being owned by a few and labor therefore being controlled by external needs (needs of the owners, not the workers). In all industries, from manufacturing, to programming, to IP design, cooperative work is the basis of progress.
Having profit demands run the company usually exist on the basis that the shareholders will get richer and workers get compensated for giving up freedom of input and say in production. The authoritarian model you are use to, even in start-ups, considers production not as a tool to benefit costumers or workers, but as a tool to expand market share.
Even for profit cooperatives like evergreen and Mondragon don't follow such rigid ideologies as they exist to create wealth for the workers by the workers.
Private capitalist only exist to funnel capital to themselves, they don't exist to provide for everyone. Real sustainable models require costumer and worker development of a union (company) such as in electric power grid supply (not the private ones like pepco) https://www.electric.coop/on-the-issues/power-supply/
Even the entertainment industry would benefit as designers, programmers, and workers of all stripes and colors would work on a system of sharing without the necessary growth models to stay alive (as they don't answer to shareholders or land lords). Basing companies on personal ownership rather than private control gives everyone a say, and each different work place would not exist under the same rule.
I hope tech start ups would turn away from the destructive vulture capitalist path they're going down. They are no different today than wall street in business matters of affects on our economy.
Got any links to world powers in the last 300 years running such a system?
You have a very narrow understanding of what a company is, especially compared to a union.
Seeing companies as production centers (regardless of what they do) can disconnect the labor aspect of work and the legal aspect (forming a corporation that spans multiple locations).
Ownership and private ownership also come into play here, with all capital being owned by a few and labor therefore being controlled by external needs (needs of the owners, not the workers). In all industries, from manufacturing, to programming, to IP design, cooperative work is the basis of progress.
Having profit demands run the company usually exist on the basis that the shareholders will get richer and workers get compensated for giving up freedom of input and say in production. The authoritarian model you are use to, even in start-ups, considers production not as a tool to benefit costumers or workers, but as a tool to expand market share.
Even for profit cooperatives like evergreen and Mondragon don't follow such rigid ideologies as they exist to create wealth for the workers by the workers.
Private capitalist only exist to funnel capital to themselves, they don't exist to provide for everyone. Real sustainable models require costumer and worker development of a union (company) such as in electric power grid supply (not the private ones like pepco) https://www.electric.coop/on-the-issues/power-supply/
Even the entertainment industry would benefit as designers, programmers, and workers of all stripes and colors would work on a system of sharing without the necessary growth models to stay alive (as they don't answer to shareholders or land lords). Basing companies on personal ownership rather than private control gives everyone a say, and each different work place would not exist under the same rule.
I hope tech start ups would turn away from the destructive vulture capitalist path they're going down. They are no different today than wall street in business matters of affects on our economy.
That’s what rapid industrialization plus Latin American colonialism and the largest western population gets you.
The sustainment of the empire after WW2 was because of what I mentioned.
Without the US and the economic power it had, post WWII Europe would have starved, and stayed a wasteland for decades. Or, the Soviets would have just taken over and killed even more people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rummage
So let us know the name of this utopian company after you create it, and we will all go work there.
And in your business model, when the company gets sued, do all the workers in the company pay for the lawsuit?
I didn't think so.
It doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
You know there are hundreds of worker cooperatives out there, far more successful than vulture capitalist institutions.
Ideally we’ll get to the point that cooperatives aren’t for profit and there would be no legal standing for a lawsuit.
Absent profit, there's no way to expand, or improve the business, or replace machines, etc.
A cashless society is a concept that reflects weak thinking, and a lack of understanding of reality. Cash is a value store that lets a person trade their labor for a good or service that isn't practical to barter for. Cash also allows a person to store their labor to achieve a goal that can't be accomplished in the short term.
The cooperative types of organizations OP describes can work for small entities that aren't dependent on the outside world for any goods or services, but are utterly impractical for the world at large.
Without the US and the economic power it had, post WWII Europe would have starved, and stayed a wasteland for decades. Or, the Soviets would have just taken over and killed even more people.
It doesn't exist.
Absent profit, there's no way to expand, or improve the business, or replace machines, etc.
A cashless society is a concept that reflects weak thinking, and a lack of understanding of reality. Cash is a value store that lets a person trade their labor for a good or service that isn't practical to barter for. Cash also allows a person to store their labor to achieve a goal that can't be accomplished in the short term.
The cooperative types of organizations OP describes can work for small entities that aren't dependent on the outside world for any goods or services, but are utterly impractical for the world at large.
Ok, lets go through this:
1. The Marshall plan had a mountain of propaganda going for it. It wasn't put in place out of the kindness of our hearts, nor was it symbolic of anything but US imperialism. It had everything to do with making Europe reliant on US economic power (converting to Oil, etc.).
2. Yes it does, it exists everywhere, the majority of the world hasn't operated under private or state control (despite what may be official stated) for a long time. Today that may have changed, but even now there are dozens of examples.
3. You have a severe misunderstanding how cash is operated by. It isn't a product of the free markets, rather its a centralized currency that is directly controlled by the state and is used to manipulate domestic economics (and international in the case of the US) to benefit the largest corporations. I suggest you read: A Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, currency systems are never voluntary and involve the constant threat that all labor, and anything that can be capitalized on (which is practically anything) can be given a value outside of its direct function. Once that value is ascertained, the freedom of usage is regulated to only a few and the many lose out on benefits from freely practicing their labor. Take value away from rarity or other none functional resources, and the basis of an economy will be function. Having formal unions produce off of demand is then possible as they would have no incentive to distort their local market (or international) market by creating demand for the supply they have (a total contradiction towards what Adam Smith supported).
In terms of formal economic development, that is based on large scale trade, communication, and sharing of resources. Rather than having one centralized corporation controlling all these different work places (or production centers) they'd be members of a Syndicate (similar to a guild) which would be a venue to share information (there would be no reason not to being as the profit motive is no longer in play) and trade excess production all in the guise of mutual aid. Once one supports the other, the other benefits as well by making production better for everyone. It is the same linked system you see in modern economic institutions, but rather than the power relationship being handled top down for the interests of a few people, it would be handled horizontally between each economic union all existing on the basis of direct democracy rather than tyranny (the model modern day companies follow).
4. This is completely false. Some 47% of our economy/population (the united states) control their money in credit union banks which are costumer owned local banking systems where those who actual own the cash choose how it is operated rather than ceasing its value to an international corporation with little care for your own money. Similar to what I said before, while these credit union banks may exist in a small scale capacity, they do work worth with each other which makes the idea that this is some feudal system with no economic supply chain nonsense.
Similarly, cooperative electric systems which are non-for profit exist in 47 states and handle 56% of the landmass in the entire country. These aren't small scale operations, they are handled locally but they make up a system (in a horizontal power structure, not top down) that provide for people where the state and the private industry don't. Now obviously private industry doesn't like this, but if they were in charge the scale of the operation would NOT grow but the quality and cost of service would get worse. Once again these models are consumer owned, democratically managed, and help form huge swaths of the US economy. https://www.electric.coop/electric-c...ve-fact-sheet/
Similarly Mondragon is a collection of different cooperatives, its less of a conglomerate and more of a connected group of different work places. It has together more than 74,000 workers, all who operate under a large bureaucracy of checks and balances and democratic influence. While there model isn't the best and is still embedded in the international system, it is massively successful showing cooperative culture and design garners innovation much more than strict authoritarian structures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
And Mondragon is just the tip of the iceberg. Even in the political realm, if you look outside of the zapatista's who have built a self sustaining society and have protected themselves from destruction by the government: https://pulitzercenter.org/reporting...z-obrador-amlo
And still they are rapidly improving. This free non-private or state controlled system still has examples in many places. For more formal industrialized societies, you don't need to look further than Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war. Industrial output increased during this period, and while factories were handled independently by production center where the workers ran the business model, they were all connected and cooperated with each other. In microscopic terms yes, they were small scale, but they made up pieces of a whole and came to operate a large industrialized economy without top down control by the state or the private industry.
Electrical coops are owned by the customers, not the workers, and are profit oriented to some extent, if only to accumulate funds for maintenance and expansion. The workers have little to no say in how the coops are operated, so to employees, the coops act just like any other corporation.
Don't try to lecture me on cash, etc. I've forgotten more on those topics than you ever knew. None of the drivel you are spouting is new. It's been hashed over numerous times. If it worked, we would be moving in that direction, but we aren't. Your themes assume all humans want to be like every other human, with no individuality and no desire to try something daring and risky to better their lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
????
