[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1626507475358.png ( 128.78 KB , 807x935 , 6d04dbe8c83d593754874c86ce….png )

 No.383086

If workers coops are a necessary step in socialism why can't they raise capital with NON VOTING SHARES? Shareholders could buy and sell but not vote on any decisions unlike the workers. that way they can raise money but not have to listen to porkies
>>

 No.383224

>>383086
>workers coöps
no
>>

 No.383613

>>383086
They do in reality, but it’s still a bit of a rough pitch because private equity want control. You’re basically talking preferred equity. Co-ops also don’t want to be married to some non-controlling investors, so they usually make the shares callable, so they can buy these people out. But then the shares start just looking like bonds or loans, so you’re a bit trapped in the same predicament you were before of struggling to appeal to private equity.
>>

 No.383617

>>383613
Incidentally I think there are solutions to this problem that have already been proposed. People are still working out details.
>>

 No.384113

File: 1626547963883.png ( 79.28 KB , 500x566 , when-you-democratically-fi….png )

>>383086
>>

 No.384133

>>384113
There wouldnt be transfers of workers in planned economy, from less needed to more needed areas? How do you imagine that could work?
>>

 No.384138

>>384133
congrats on discovering the problem with market "socialism". this problem doesn't exist in planning
>>

 No.384141

I don't understand OP, you talk about the coop now or after a worker revolution ?
>>

 No.384145

>>384138
Co-ops can transfer employees if their structure is more of a federation. Mondragon has its unemployment program. Which isn’t meant to glorify Mondragon as ideal, just to point out in reality there are actually existing micro-planned economies in the co-op sector.
>>

 No.384245

>>384145
>Co-ops can transfer employees if their structure is more of a federation
you mean if the co-op isn't actually a co-op? thanks for making my point for me
socialism is the same as the whole world economy being one single firm. call it a co-op if you will
>>

 No.384300

>>384245
What else is it? Mondragon is still a co-op, it’s a private business entity. It’s just that co-ops can, if they’re structured right, begin to have features that seem to transcend their mere form of appearance in liberal capitalism as a “business”
>>

 No.384438

>>384300
call it something else then, so people don't think you're some market socialist that thinks the solution is co-ops competing with each other
>>

 No.384483

>>383086
Worker coops aren't even necessary faggot
>>

 No.384565

No one would buy those shares because the workers will keep all profits to themselves. /thread
>>

 No.384577

>>384565
I think they’d be willing to make distributions as much as they’d be willing to pay a loan. I think the problem is more on the investor side. Big private equity bags aren’t going to want to take that deal, they want more control.
>>

 No.384603

>>383617
like what
>>

 No.384604

>>384577
yeah but there could still be "mom and pop" retail investors?
>>

 No.384654

>>384604
Depends on state law. You usually can’t issue securities to people unless they’re millionaires, or else you gotta register with the SEC and state securities regulators (expensive). Two most prominent exceptions that come to mind are California and Colorado. In California cooperatives can issue securities to a bunch of people for $1,000 each I think. Colorado also has some favorable laws for coops issuing securities to members or something.

>>384603
Venture commune idea from Dmytri Kleiner. I’d look up Ian Wright’s blogpost on it for a summary.
>>

 No.384973

File: 1626580214611.jpg ( 129.9 KB , 1074x810 , Time to do absolutely noth….jpg )

>>383224
>noooo you can't have workers ACTUALLY controlling the means of production, it has to be through our vanguard party who'll totally represent their interests haha
t. stalin
Get back in your grave, old man.
>>

 No.385793

>>384973
He can't, he doesn't have the IMF loans necessary for buying the coffin
>>

 No.385824

coops without state sector would lead to massive unemployment
nationalize all the big and medium enterprises, I dunno in tax laws where I live they are differentiated by a number of employees, and turn the small ones into coops

but planning without direct democracy doesn't work, government becomes a thing in itself preoccupied with upholding the status quo, society and economy becomes stagnant, and without market discipline all goes to shit
planning economy requires replacement of market dynamism with political dynamism
>>

 No.390820

What about cooperatives with cyber indicative planning?

>>385824
>coops without state sector would lead to massive unemployment
They can just reduce the working hours.

>>384245
>socialism is the same as the whole world economy being one single firm. call it a co-op if you will
A co-op that you and your coworkers have no power to decide anything.


>NOOO, YOU CAN HAVE COOPS! THATS NOT SOCIALISM!
Its kinda funny how the idea of the cooperatives is popular between the common folk while they hate the idea of a centralized planned economy, while the left is the exactly the oposite, same goes with direct democracy, its even more funny because most of the left can't help itself when they see a slighy more progressive politician or end up supporting the lesser evil.
>>

 No.390902

>>390820
>A co-op that you and your coworkers have no power to decide anything.
I didn't say that. only that all production happens inside the one firm, since there's no market. decisions must also necessarily be distributed across branches/localities/whatever. this because any central decision body simply doesn't have enough bandwidth to deal with every minute thing. requisite variety and all that.
>>

 No.390912

>>390820
>>390902 (me)
the same goes for what we could call "building the plan". it is not possible to decide centrally, by humans, who should produce what. this is what we have computers for. and these computer will solve the one single set of equations. if you don't coordinate all workplaces within the one set of equations then exchange must be used. and so you are back to market socialism and the restoration of capitalism.

what humans can do, at all levels, is feed the system of equations, put in constraints and so on. glushkov tried to do this in the USSR, with some success, before gorby and especially jeltsin came along.
>>

 No.392224

>>390902
>I didn't say that
I said it.

>only that all production happens inside the one firm, since there's no market. decisions must also necessarily be distributed across branches/localities/whatever. this because any central decision body simply doesn't have enough bandwidth to deal with every minute thing. requisite variety and all that.
What doesn't happen in the socialist regimes that we had until now, in soviet union, for example, it was the gosplan who decide who, when and how, thats cannot be called a co-op.

> if you don't coordinate all workplaces within the one set of equations then exchange must be used. and so you are back to market socialism and the restoration of capitalism.
>markets = capitalism
Lol, are sure thats your a marxist? you think like a ancap.
Also, again the worker have no power in decide anything relate to the production or the work.
>>

 No.392226

File: 1626884841407.gif ( 499.58 KB , 500x374 , consider the following.gif )

what if instead of private investors
you sell shares to customers
when you buy the regular product you also get a tiny share of the company
that way the co-op is owned by the workers and the people it serves
>>

 No.392630

>>384138
What? My point is that this exact problem would still exist in planned economy.
You have to assign workers to where they are needed to work.
>>

 No.393930

>>392226
What if customers buy shares before they get their product, like they pre-order their product and they get a share. That's an easy way to predict future demand and implement cybersoc planning.
>>

 No.393933

>>392226
What happens when the coop runs out of shares to sell? Another option is to sell shares through memberships, the CO-OP grocery store in Norway works like that.
>>

 No.393965

File: 1626959313858.mp4 ( 26.58 MB , 640x358 , The Limits of Market Socia….mp4 )

>>392224
>What doesn't happen in the socialist regimes that we had until now, in soviet union, for example, it was the gosplan who decide who, when and how, thats cannot be called a co-op.
good thing no one in /cybersoc/ suggests Gosplan-style planning then

>Lol, are sure thats your a marxist? you think like a ancap.
go read some econophysics. or if you're lazy, watch vid related

>Also, again the worker have no power in decide anything relate to the production or the work.
you are incorrect. read Beer

>>392630
of course people might have to move to where the jobs are. this is the case also today. you should keep in mind that with the profit motive out of the picture the length of the working week shrinks drastically, to where we can allow considerable "slack" in the system. we can consciously maintain a socialist reserve army of labour.
>>

 No.393971

>>383086
Worker's coops isn't necessarily the same thing as market "socialism". If a coop exists within a market of capital and a market of labour then it is limited and determined by those markets and forced to basically self-exploit. By themselves they are definitely not a necessary step to socialism.

On the other hand if there is no such markets, meaning it is combined with central planning that invests not based on profits and employment is absolutely guaranteed, so we are already in a form of socialism, then a coop can actually fully decide what to do and is a step towards communism.

Unique IPs: 17
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome