Coronavirus
- Thread starter Operational needs
- Start date
your last sentence is true unfortunately. on the other hand ppl probably have some kind of desire to run their own small biz and to not be on the recieving end of a power system
i highly doubt the scaling thing, but htey certainly have other problems. although not big enough for my guys to not recommend it over capitalism.
SCOTT: What exactly is a worker-owned company? What makes them different from conventional businesses?
GAR: A worker-owned company, or cooperative, is essentially a one-person one-vote, member-owned and -controlled economic institution or business.
The Cooperative Economy: A Conversation with Gar Alperovitz
garalperovitz.org
so actually my friends biz is member owned and controlled.
Last edited:
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
.
I'm leaning more towards head trauma victim...
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
your last sentence is true unfortunately. on the other hand ppl probably have some kind of desire to run their own small biz and to not be on the recieving end of a power system
i highly doubt the scaling thing, but htey certainly have other problems.
SCOTT: What exactly is a worker-owned company? What makes them different from conventional businesses?
GAR: A worker-owned company, or cooperative, is essentially a one-person one-vote, member-owned and -controlled economic institution or business.
The Cooperative Economy: A Conversation with Gar Alperovitz
so actually my friends biz is member owned and controlled.
How do they break ties when they disagree? And why is it that you give me a ration of
when I tell you you can start your own business, but when your two friends start one, it's the bomb?go look it up i forget.
i tried joining a coop but unfortunately the economy here is dominated by capitalist biz for whatever reason.
You're as persecuted by the evil capitalists as you are the US Border Patrol, aren't you? LOL
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
No, I want you to tell me what your friends do when they disagree. One person, one vote. How do they break a tie?
ill ask. they probably dont do anything. worse case they close biz or buy the other guy out.
actually i do and im right quite often becuase my source of news is not hte ny post
Operational needs
Virescit Vulnere Virtus
You DO Realize I have many sources for news, right? I just post articles from the NY Post because I enjoy their opinion pieces and their articles tend to be shorter and more to the point.actually i do and im right quite often becuase my source of news is not hte ny post
Ricky, she's got a very valid point.actually i do and im right quite often becuase my source of news is not hte ny post
I don't think you're a bad guy, but you do tend to ignore points anyone makes that runs counter to your own.
A little humility and willingness to listen to others would probably go a long way...
yes i am aware you read more than just hte ny post
@It will be fine
this is from richard wolff, probably one of hte greater products of harvard and maybe americas most popular socialist economist.
1. The term “coops” covers many different things: collective buying institutions (e.g. food coops), collective selling institutions (individual small capitalist enterprises who get together to sell their products), collective owners (farmers who own collectively the land they farm in individual farms). We are mostly interested in yet another type or meaning of coop: when workers in an enterprise collectively function as their own board of directors, thereby not needing any separate group of people functioning as a board of directors. We call this sort of coop a Workers Self-Directed Enterprise or WSDE. There really is little broad evidence that compares businesses that are otherwise alike (what, how and where they produce) except that some are run as top-down hierarchical capitalist enterprises whereas others are WSDEs (coops in the sense of worker self-directed enterprises). WSDEs still remain relatively few compared with capitalistically organized enterprises. In any case we don’t have grounds to say that WSDEs, for example, fail at any greater rate than capitalist enterprises. Where we do have some evidence – for example, with the huge Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in northern Spain – it is quite clear that its member coops (WSDEs) have failed at lower rates than their capitalist counterparts over the last 50 years. Historical evidence suggests that enterprises are very complicated and complex things utterly dependent for their survival on the interplay of external conditions (over many of which they exert little or no control) and internal conditions (all the technical and interpersonal aspects of producing and distributing goods and services). Special sets of conditions bring enterprises into existence. Changing conditions change those enterprises. And new conditions often end the useful lives of many enterprises. No one aspect of a business (whether it is hierarchical/capitalist versus WSDE) ever determines success or failure; those results always depend on the interplay of many factors. Also, we need to be careful about the word “fail.” It means different things for capitalist enterprises than for WSDEs. Capitalistically-organized enterprises focus on “bottom lines” such as profit rates or growth rates or market shares. If they don’t get those big enough, they “fail.” Quite differently, WSDE’s do not focus on one, two or three measures. They are concerned about profits and growth but also about the welfare of workers and their families, of surrounding communities where they live, of the quality of life and personal development on the job, and so on. In a word, a WSDE that did well on many of those issues even if its profit rate was low would not be viewed or treated as a failure. From the WSDE perspective, a capitalist enterprise that scored high on profits and growth but treated its workers and the surrounding community badly might well be judged a “failure.” Capitalist enterprises and WSDEs are basically different ways of organizing production. They likely produce correspondingly different ways of working, thinking, relating to other people, and so on. They have different ways of serving people’s needs. Likewise, if and when an enterprise “fails” and disappears, the two systems differ in how they handle that failure. Capitalist enterprises typically dissolve in bankruptcy where capitalists and workers are on their own to search for alternative livelihoods. Coops – for example in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in northern Spain – are more likely to work out elaborate systems for finding other work in partner cooperatives for workers from a failed enterprise. If there is not enough work for all, for example, then unemployment is shared (everyone does 2 hours less work per week rather than some being completely unemployed). Secure employment is a major priority for WSDEs in ways that it is typically not for capitalist enterprises.
this is from richard wolff, probably one of hte greater products of harvard and maybe americas most popular socialist economist.
1. The term “coops” covers many different things: collective buying institutions (e.g. food coops), collective selling institutions (individual small capitalist enterprises who get together to sell their products), collective owners (farmers who own collectively the land they farm in individual farms). We are mostly interested in yet another type or meaning of coop: when workers in an enterprise collectively function as their own board of directors, thereby not needing any separate group of people functioning as a board of directors. We call this sort of coop a Workers Self-Directed Enterprise or WSDE. There really is little broad evidence that compares businesses that are otherwise alike (what, how and where they produce) except that some are run as top-down hierarchical capitalist enterprises whereas others are WSDEs (coops in the sense of worker self-directed enterprises). WSDEs still remain relatively few compared with capitalistically organized enterprises. In any case we don’t have grounds to say that WSDEs, for example, fail at any greater rate than capitalist enterprises. Where we do have some evidence – for example, with the huge Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in northern Spain – it is quite clear that its member coops (WSDEs) have failed at lower rates than their capitalist counterparts over the last 50 years. Historical evidence suggests that enterprises are very complicated and complex things utterly dependent for their survival on the interplay of external conditions (over many of which they exert little or no control) and internal conditions (all the technical and interpersonal aspects of producing and distributing goods and services). Special sets of conditions bring enterprises into existence. Changing conditions change those enterprises. And new conditions often end the useful lives of many enterprises. No one aspect of a business (whether it is hierarchical/capitalist versus WSDE) ever determines success or failure; those results always depend on the interplay of many factors. Also, we need to be careful about the word “fail.” It means different things for capitalist enterprises than for WSDEs. Capitalistically-organized enterprises focus on “bottom lines” such as profit rates or growth rates or market shares. If they don’t get those big enough, they “fail.” Quite differently, WSDE’s do not focus on one, two or three measures. They are concerned about profits and growth but also about the welfare of workers and their families, of surrounding communities where they live, of the quality of life and personal development on the job, and so on. In a word, a WSDE that did well on many of those issues even if its profit rate was low would not be viewed or treated as a failure. From the WSDE perspective, a capitalist enterprise that scored high on profits and growth but treated its workers and the surrounding community badly might well be judged a “failure.” Capitalist enterprises and WSDEs are basically different ways of organizing production. They likely produce correspondingly different ways of working, thinking, relating to other people, and so on. They have different ways of serving people’s needs. Likewise, if and when an enterprise “fails” and disappears, the two systems differ in how they handle that failure. Capitalist enterprises typically dissolve in bankruptcy where capitalists and workers are on their own to search for alternative livelihoods. Coops – for example in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in northern Spain – are more likely to work out elaborate systems for finding other work in partner cooperatives for workers from a failed enterprise. If there is not enough work for all, for example, then unemployment is shared (everyone does 2 hours less work per week rather than some being completely unemployed). Secure employment is a major priority for WSDEs in ways that it is typically not for capitalist enterprises.
Operational needs
Virescit Vulnere Virtus
My time on this earth is limited. I choose not to waste a lot of time on super long articles for daily reading. Now and then I’ll sit down and read something lengthy. Not to mention, my attention span doesn’t allow for me to read longer articles often.
i listen but i dont really agree. i do think its good to triangulate your opinion and listen to ppl i likely disagree with. its no suprise to me ppl here dont know the definition of a cooperative or socialist, because from a control stand point you are supposed to believe there is no alternative. ive admitted im wrong or i dont know plenty of times, but op needs lets her emotions overrule her logic. like i literally told zub i dont know just before or after she said that lol.
Operational needs
Virescit Vulnere Virtus
There is a difference between saying you don’t know and admitting when you’re wrong.
ive learned more from listening than reading. so listening to talks on walks, in the car, while im cooking. i used to do that anyways, not so much anymore. i would still avoid that paper though, im sure its tabloid nonsense saturated with ads. you can also look at it the stories and ask whats the likelihood this story will affect my life? alot of news has little to no effect over our life, its entertainment.
i admit im wrong too. u can look it up. like about liz warren.
You are making her point for her.
You have just come to the conclusion that no one here has a valid definition of cooperative and socialist.
Because others disagree with you, you assume they are ignorant, and dismiss what they say.
It took Mr. Wolff 600+ words to define "cooperatives".
I read it in its entirety.
I disagree with it fundamentally.
It really wasn't even all that convincing of an attempt.
You are talking about our confirmation bias without looking at your own.
Similar threads
