quote:

And as I talked about above, I'm getting a similar vibe that you think co-ops are something different than capitalist businesses...

Karl Barks posted:

if literally every single business entity was a co-op, that would probably be closer to anarcho-syndicalism... which honesty would be a lot better than what we got now

Infernot posted:

and the workers not partaking much in collective action.

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

capitalism is capitalist ownership of the means of production for profit. not sure how a worker cooperative, where the means of production are owned and democratically run by the workers, can be considered capitalist.

Postoyevsky posted:

they are different than capitalist businesses, but socialism is an economic system and mode of production, so clearly a single business isn't "socialism"

Jon Joe posted:

In conclusion:

Co-ops are better than traditional businesses
Co-ops operate according to democratic ideals, within a capitalist system
Co-ops aren't socialist
Start a drat co-op if you want to, help someone else start a co-op if they want to, and feel good doing it because its still a material improvement over present day

namesake posted:

Well yes but the political dimension beyond the workplace is very important as well. The co-ops in industries which generate a shitload of income above the average and so give their workers high quality of life as well as having cash to spare would inevitably seek to capture whatever political parties existed with a company or industry political fund and so you'd still have poorer industries and workers getting the screws tightened

Infernot posted:

It blew my mind that you can have a multi-billion dollar corporations ran by workers in capitalism. Also, previously you said that co-ops are the most likely avenue for workers to organize themselves "to do labour to make all the things that we need and and want to do" which I assume the other person who posted this original phrase you responded to, is referring to socialism. So it's not a leap to say you probably think co-operatives are "socialistic" or some other meaningless term and different somehow from capitalism.



This is on the same page, big fella. And as I talked about above, I'm getting a similar vibe that you think co-ops are something different than capitalist businesses...

Postoyevsky posted:

they are different than capitalist businesses, but socialism is an economic system and mode of production, so clearly a single business isn't "socialism"

Infernot posted:

They're different only in organization, they still operate and exist just the same as any other business in capitalism. Yes, I'd hope we all know that but the way some people are treating cooperatives is like they're something more than they are. Which, is why I said that someone might more realistically pull a term like "socialistic" out of their rear end to describe these businesses. Hell, people are sitting here jerking off to the term "democratic" in reference to them because democracy is somehow going to make the worker's existence fundamentally different in capitalism? No one's arguing that they don't have higher wages and better benefits like what a union does, but the worker's suffering in capitalism isn't whether the business has a boss or not.

Karl Barks posted:

i mean how far out does that go, is cuba not socialist because it participates in global trade?

Jon Joe posted:

I support anyone who wants to start a co-op and also that it is socialist friendly to start a co-op, but I'm not going to call a co-op socialist unless you're willing to permiss all organizations with direct democracy as socialist, including your local book club where you meet once a month to embarassingly admit you only got half-way through and then democratively agree to do it again with a different book. That this becomes socialist once you introduce a profit motive is, to me, absurd.

Jon Joe posted:

I support anyone who wants to start a co-op and also that it is socialist friendly to start a co-op, but I'm not going to call a co-op socialist unless you're willing to permiss all organizations with direct democracy as socialist, including your local book club where you meet once a month to embarassingly admit you only got half-way through and then democratively agree to do it again with a different book. That this becomes socialist once you introduce a profit motive is, to me, absurd.

Karl Barks posted:

yeah, which is most likely why you would still need a state apparatus. I'm trying to paint broad strokes here...


I feel like you're being combative for some reason, and reading more into what I'm saying than is implied. The global system is capitalism, and yes we pretty much all live within those rules. but is a kibbutz, for example, a capitalist institution? I'm not sure it is, it just operates within a larger capitalist system. I consider myself a socialist, yet I still sell my labor to capital!

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

cool but coops arent capitalist

Hostess Snack Cake posted:

the socialist history of kibbutzim is largely just history, but they still--as of 2001, mind you--were significantly more cooperative than life in, say, america. modelling socialist communities after the kibbutzim, while learning from their mistakes, is certainly an idea worth considering. hell, id probably move back if it werent for all the fascism in the country at large, since id rather not have to brutalize palestinian children for three years.

Jon Joe posted:

In conclusion:

Co-ops are better than traditional businesses
Co-ops operate according to democratic ideals, within a capitalist system
Co-ops aren't socialist
Start a drat co-op if you want to, help someone else start a co-op if they want to, and feel good doing it because its still a material improvement over present day

GalacticAcid posted:

I like your socialism, but I do not like your coops. They are so unlike your socialism.

Karl Barks posted:

"co-ops are the only thing we need for big C Communism, baby" - josef stalin

Dreddout posted:

This is definitely wrong, at least wrt the teachers unions. The one in West Virginia went wildcat and Oklahoma threatened to do the same before getting snuffed out by the union organizers.

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

a book club is not the means of production

an actual dog posted:

I'm gay

Jon Joe posted:

Neither is a co-op unless the workers have the option to produce for the public good, rather than profit.

Jon Joe posted:

Neither is a co-op unless the workers have the option to produce for the public good, rather than profit.

Jon Joe posted:

Neither is a co-op unless the workers have the option to produce for the public good, rather than profit.

Confounding Factor posted:

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

a book club is not the means of production

Venom Snake posted:

whats that quote from orwell or some other guy about the intellectual having a contrived self defeating notion of what socialism is and the actual workers supporting socialism defining it as "my life being less awful"