Every company should be owned by its employees
Open link in next tab
Every company should be sold to its employees
https://www.elysian.press/p/employee-ownership
Central States Manufacturing as a model for exiting to employee-ownership.
https://www.elysian.press/p/employee-ownership
Central States Manufacturing as a model for exiting to employee-ownership.
How can the working class own something if the state owns it?
It's very simple.
Nationalists nationalize.
Socialists socialize.
If one is doing the other it means somebody is lying to you.
That's just nonsense there's plenty of reasons certain resources should be nationalized. Why do I care if the company that owns all the clean water is owned by one asshole or a group of them? Certain things in a nation belong to the people of the nation as a whole. Namely the national resources. No one company deserves to own that.
I like the idea of having just a cool government we trust and who do the right thing. Imagine that. Making parks and stuff. But also cool citizens who also sometimes disagree with the government. Like at their core. Without having a big ass conniption every time like the sky is about to fall.
That’s just nonsense
No. It isn't. If nationalism is your game, fine... but just be honest about it. Don't confuse it with socialism (unknowingly or otherwise) - the two aren't compatible in any way whatsoever.
If you're a nationalist, you believe that all resources should be controlled for the benefit of the people living inside the territory demarcated by imaginary lines drawn on a map - that is a very distinct thing from capitalism, which holds that resources must be privately owned and fuck the people living inside (or outside) said territory.
You have completely and utterly misused the term nationalized and nationalist here and are applying a meaning that they do not have. Nationalists don't nationalize resources and Industry. You can say it as much as you want but it's just complete fiction what you're talking about. The historic link between nationalism and capitalism is so incredibly ingrained and strong that you saying otherwise is simply put unbelievable. This is simply nonsense and drivel that you have created from nothing.
I'm honestly not sure if this is the most intellectually dishonest comment I've ever seen or if you're having some kind of fever dream where the meaning of words are different to you and you're going to wake up in 2 days and be like oh shit what did I say?
You have completely and utterly misused
Lol! No Clyde - I haven't. Nationalism is a very simple thing - it's not my fault you associate nationalism with fascism (which is always just false nationalism) or capitalism (which is perfectly incompatible with the beliefs of anyone who actually fetishizes a given nation state - even fascists like Francisco Franco understood that). The US has spent more resources combating nationalism in the middle-east than socialism - do you think they did that because nationalism is so "compatible" with capitalism?
I hate to be the one to break it to you - but Fidel Castro was far more of a nationalist than Adolf Hitler was. In fact, the majority of the anti-imperialist campaigns waged against colonial power during the (so-called) "Cold War" was nationalist in nature - not socialist.
The historic link between nationalism and capitalism
There are those who will pretend that there are "historic links" between liberalism and democracy, too - even though they are violently incompatible concepts. "Historic links" doesn't mean anything.
You can call the US "democratic" and the USSR "socialist" all you want - but that does not make any of it reality.
Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler were both nationalists, Hitler was also fascist. I think you might have a inaccurate definition of nationalism.
Nationalism is more about elevating a certain ethnic group and creating a nation in the process if needed. WW2 Germany was all about elevating Germans at the cost of everyone else. It rose to prominence in 18th century Europe when nations in Europe declared themselves as independent.
Nationalizing is about taking a resource or a company and putting it into the hands of the state for the people.
These are two completely different concepts with a small overlap.
Nationalism is more about elevating a certain ethnic group
No it isn't - that is so distinct from garden-variety nationalism that we call it ethno-nationalism. There are plenty of nationalist projects that doesn't have an ethno-nationalist aspect to them - there are plenty of them outside the imperial core in the (so-called) "third-world." You wanna be the one to tell them they are doing nationalism wrong?
WW2 Germany was all about elevating Germans at the cost of everyone else.
Violently building an alt-fantasy empire has nothing to do with "elevating" a people - that's imperialism, not nationalism. You can argue that the two concepts may be related - but you can't argue that nationalism inherently requires genocidal imperialism.
Nationalizing is about taking a resource or a company and putting it into the hands of the state for the people.
In other words... the only possible benefit that nationalism has ever presented as a justification for it's own existence?
Fancy that.
Here's a link that with a definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, it presupposes the existence and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. There are various definitions of a "nation", which leads to different types of nationalism. The two main divergent forms are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.
And here is another one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
Nationalization (nationalisation in British English) is the process of transforming privately-owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization contrasts with privatization and with demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization. Industries often subject to nationalization include telecommunications, electric power, fossil fuels, railways, airlines, iron ore, media, postal services, banks, and water (sometimes called the commanding heights of the economy), and in many jurisdictions such entities have no history of private ownership.
Nationalization may occur with or without financial compensation to the former owners. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, in 1945 the French government seized the car-maker Renault because its owners had collaborated with the 1940–1944 Nazi occupiers of France.[2] In September 2021, Berliners voted to expropriate over 240,000 housing units, many of which were being held unoccupied as investment property.[3][4]
Governance, government and states are all different and nebulous within themselves. You can achieve governance models that better resist the consolidation of power while still operating towards the goal of the collective good. That alone does not denote nationalization, which is a particular form of statehood (often referred to as a sovereign state). Watershed governance is managed across existing levels of international, regional and local governing bodies, often with a high level of success to best ensure sufficient water is available for the communities within.
That seems like an awfully swell nice ideal there, the reality though is where I live and people like me live where local governments just sells your water to private corporations and now you don't have enough water.
Definitely not saying it works pervasively, lots of jurisdictions work as plutocracies and have vacated any sense of public good. That some jurisdictions suck doesn't nullify the possibilities of cooperation and public good being the foundations of good governance.
I'd say it does. Because it's not an aberration. That's how capitalism works. If a corporation can Corner the market on a natural resource and screw the people over it will. That's by Design. That's why I don't trust any situation in which private ownership can own a natural resource that people rely upon. It will happen every single time.
Simple if you understand the theory and history. The main difference between Communists and anarchists is the involvement of the state.
...what? Have you just assumed that words are the same because they sound similar?
Nationalisation of industries and resources refers to public ownership vs private ownership
Nationalism is an ideology that became widespread in the late 19th Century, that emphasises the codification of States on ethnic grounds
Nachos are a type of corn or potato chip, often combined with cheese and guacomole
The problem isn’t usually nationalization but the utter lack of democratic control of what is owned by the state
I'd say that before that your problem is that if a state has the power to nationalize something it also has the power to privatize it again... all it takes is one Reagan or Thatcher. Or hell, an Obama - who essentially nationalized General Motors after the 2008 crash and then handed it all straight back to the capitalists again.
As a programmer, I think it’ll be pretty tough to achieve this entirely with pure functions, at some point we’re going to have to store state.
It's important to consider the conditions in which state ownership was deemed necessary. Countries with a starving and illiterate working class isn't as capable at a true worker owned economy as one that already has a well fed and educated working class. A true socialist society needs basic infrastructure and fulfillment of the basic needs of its people before it can be properly implemented.
Lenin's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was intended to be a temporary system intended on rapid development and growth of the economy. It was more important to try and stop starvation and establish railroads than build worker co-ops. The mistake was when the leaders that came after decided to never cede power back to the working class.
The mistake was when the leaders that came after decided to never cede power back to the working class.
Unfortunately I see this as a permanent road block because we can't rid ourselves of the worst kinds of people, they're just born psychopaths/sociopaths and seek positions of power to exploit :(
I have a new working theory. We reward assholes and no system we can ever hope for will ever overcome the asshole engorgement paradox therefore all systems will always turn to shit.
Certainly Lenin and good compatriots has the best of intentions with their vanguard approach to intention. But, as you noted, that concentration of power ultimately corrupted in the hands of a nefarious few. These ideas were not Lenin's alone and even Marx promoted the idea of a Vanguard long before the Bolshevik revolution, which Bakunin (an early anarchist) was opposed due to the likelihood of the vanguard becoming entrenched within that power. That concentration of power by a class of elite was the mistake. To argue there wasn't time to educate the masses is to ignore the fallout of that approach. These are important lessons to remember, even should the future approach to revolution be focused on the establishment of worker co-ops. Positions of power and power between cooperatives are likely to remain and we will need systems of control to mediate these types of emergent hierarchies.
Lenin's concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was intended to be a temporary system intended on rapid development and growth of the economy. It was more important to try and stop starvation and establish railroads than build worker co-ops. The mistake was when the leaders that came after decided to never cede power back to the working class.
Marx came up with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not Lenin, and it didn't mean Dictatorship over the Proletariat, but of the Proletariat, as a contrast to the Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
The DotP is not to stop starvation or anything, it's to protect against the resurgance of Capitalism. It additionally wasn't meant to be "ceded back to the working class," but become unnecessary as the mechanisms for Capitalism to come back were erased.
Neither Marx nor Lenin were advocating for literal modern conceptions of dictatorship, but consolidating all power away from the bourgeoisie and into the hands of the Proletariat.
Marx coined the term, sure. But he didn't come up with much more than that and a very rudimentary theory on how it would work. Lenin put it into practice and actually created it as an economic model. Everything else you're arguing is theoretical semantics. How the thing works is how the thing works.
I work in an esop. It's pretty cool in that we own the company in shares based on tenure, it's not like a union though.
We don't vote on the CEO or the board, we have third party trustees that manage the esop account.
We aren't beholden to external shareholders, which is the absolute best part. Line doesn't go up, it really just affects our retirement accounts, but even then our valuation takes into account stuff like cash on hand and contract stability. So... We have pretty fiscally conservative management, which is a great thing for us.
I work at an ESOP as well. Honestly I'm glad I fell into this. I have a feeling that I may actually be able to retire. If not early. Probably one of my best moves in my career.
This sounds like a worker cooperative which is a classic socialist concept that could be applied to modern social democrat capitalism.
Since I straddle the line in my political views between Marxism and social democracy I'd like to share an approach.
Mandatory profit sharing and workers always have a certain proportion of the board elected democratically. Simple as that. CEO bonuses should be made illegal and all of those profits should be funneled to the workers. People will be a lot more involved in the corporate governance and it will align the will of the workers with that of the shareholders.
Economists say that in the long run productivity is everything and worker's having a for-profit voice that will make arguments like "we're losing our best workers because of low pay" to increase salaries is important. This will make each person higher paid and more productive.
You guys know about Walmart, that one rose to success by profit sharing but capitalism got the better of it and now so many workers both time and money poor because they work there.
I work in consultancy and have a dream of forming a small elite company of consultants, employee owned, just 10 or so people who are shit hot at their jobs.
I would plan for it to always be 10 people, deliberately no growth. Do the job well, take a good wage, have some parties.
It's when companies look for massive growth and shareholder value that everything starts to go to shit.
In 2024, a crack team of management consultants was assembled to solve the toughest business challenges. These consultants promptly escaped from traditional firms to form their own elite unit. Today, still wanted by companies worldwide, they survive as consultants of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The C-Team.
[Cue dramatic music]
just 10 or so people who are shit hot at their jobs.
Why would you want ten competent people when Deloite and McKinsey prove you can make way more money with a thousand incompetent people?
Hey, me too! Except I want growth. I want an army of consultants, all of whom own equal parts of the company. We could charge 3/4 of our competition and still make a ton of income while undercutting the larger, shareholder controlled firms. Someday...
That's the premise of citizen Kane's main character, Kane. It didn't go as he expected.
That movie is like 100 years old.
A consultant is just a professional that works on a contract basis rather than employment.
A contractor does physical tasks while a consultant does intangible things... advice, reports, et cetera.
I think this comment says more about you than it does about me. You might want to get that looked at.
Then you vote on it and they take over and it turns into a shit company that started out as a good idea, like so many others.
The only reason for growth is if you want to skim the money earned from other people's work.
It's a person who temporarily joins a company, tells everything is wrong, writes that in a piece of paper and moves on to another company.
If their paper happens to say what the CEO thinks then they're invited to come back a couple years later.
Balance your workload with care. Once you have "enough" work, hopefully you have other firms you can refer unwanted work to. My small business is run by a guy who A) isn't growing the business and B) says yes to every assignment. He's burning out, I'm burning out, and one of our best people burned out and quit last month. It's a nightmare.
I was thinking a kind of get-in-line attitude. We can get to you but not for 6 months, that's just how it is.
This way you just end up with the shit clients that no one else wants.
If you find a client who's a better fit than 80% of your clients that 80% get's pushed down the line.
Its definitely the dream!
10 is a lot of cats to herd though. Do you already have your fantasy football team ready? Do you think that they share your (lack of) ambition?
At the same time 10 is a small number if a couple go on parental/sick leave at the same time. Are you ready to 'hold the baby' and get no extra credit? Who will do the admin/HR/sales/marketing/taking-the-bins-out/whatever you don't like doing?
10 people is enough that it would be very hard to run in a truly egalitarian way - its your idea, so would you be the 'primus inter pares'? ;-)
Honestly, It could be great - so please see me poking holes as a way to make your plan stronger.
Not the person you responded to but I have a similar plan for a company. The one hole I have a solution for I believe should be adopted by all companies: if it's a job that isn't your core focus, outsource. Everything from bookkeeping to janitorial staff should be an outside company (with your same ethics). I dream of a world where everyone is self-employed or part of small co-ops, and not one single company expands vertically or horizontally. Pick one thing you're good at and do that one thing well. Everything else, give that labor to someone else. I'm looking at you, Amazon.
I’m looking at you, Amazon.
You mean that you want to copy Amazon? Since this is exactly what they have done, outsourced delivery drivers; driven to pissing in bottles, outsourced sellers; selling items at a loss to imaginary bots to get positive reviews (amazon making its cut all the same).
I shouldn't respond... but let me guess:
The one thing that you are good at isn't unblocking toilets, is it? No, I'll bet you are really good at something rewarding like solving difficult math problems, or 'consulting' or some other rewarding job. I'm sure that you were top of your class at school, but in the real world, if you didn't turn up, the world would keep turning just fine.
I am saying this from no moral high ground at all (I am well rewarded for what is termed a 'bullshit job'), just pointing out that what you are saying kind of assumes that the proles want to live in your utopia, do you still expect to have a better living than the person who shovels your shit when you block the toilet? Thought so.
[edit: sorry for being such a curmudgeon - I must be having a bad day. If I've offended - check your idealism. Please start your ideal business - the world needs idealists... as well as people with shovels]
Luke Skywalker every word you just said is wrong.gif
Amazon's delivery service is part of Amazon. The reason Amazon employees have to piss in bottles is because they are owned by Amazon. The reason their tax returns list them as contractors is so Amazon can dodge the laws and the taxes that come with them.
And where did you get the impression that an outsourced job would be lesser? The exact reason I would want all companies to focus on only the one thing they're good at is to be forced, for lack of a better word, to pay what those jobs are worth. I would hope the person unblocking my toilet is self-employed so they can charge what they feel is a price equal to the effort of their job.
But on the other hand, I'm sure we'll all be treated well and paid well when there are only four companies to work for and they all collude with each other.
Why are you down voting the guy?? They have ethics, a vision, and totally reasonable way of building a 10 people community that care for each other.
You know, capitalism may outlive all of us but it's not forever. This wasn't the way to do things before shareholder supremacy in the 80s.
I guess but it doesn't really solve many problems. Much more importantly, every company should be held to strict standards by a democratic institution of laws.
For examples:
Both workers rights and pay rates need to be regulated to a bare minimum, because there will always be cases of some people (or groups of people) who try to abuse others and work around the rules. Example: Uber skirts employee benefits by not having "employees", large companies have "subsidiary companies", etc.
Even if a company of 500 people always look out for themselves and each other, they might still become a detriment to the larger society or hostile towards similar companies.
Having both tight regulatory bodies and strong union/cooperatives are fine, but regulation comes first imo.
If the original owner can do it better on their own they should go into business for themselves rather than create an LLC, once LLC it should be mutually beneficial, not just there to protect the owners private assets
In the UK we have the designation of Sole Trader for that. Is there not something similar where you are?
Sole Prop(rietor), but it's still just a pass-through LLC for one person. More of a legal separation for liability than anything else in the US.
This was my opinion. Any company that wants to go public should be required to restructure as a cooperative. Stay private means you get to be the man running the show. But the benefits the market gives business also means those business usually impact people at a scale that no individual or handful of individuals should be making decisions especially when those decisions are " increase profits at all costs". Cooperatives bring locals to the decision making and helps regulate some choices that are made at the executive level
How does an Employee Stock Ownership Plan work? How do partners/employees make money with it? When you hold stock, don't you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
And how do you hire somebody? Do you sell your shares to the person at no cost or something?
I'm confused.
Every year I get shares from my company. The vesting period is typically longer. For me it took 7 years to be fully vested. But I was accumulating every year. When I leave the company, the company will pay out my shares and I can tell them where to put the funds. But the higher base salary I have, the more shares I get. Also the people retiring or leaving the company, the shares get bought back by the company and redistribute to the employees. At least that's how it works at the ESOP I work at. Kinda a simplistic view of it.
When someone is hired, they don't get shares. They are enrolled into the ESOP program. Then after some time, they will eventually start accruing shares on a regular basis.
Think of it like a founder selling their company to their current employees.
Current employees have no money but will if/when their future company does well.
A third party pays the owner now and manages this account.
Once employees retire, they sell their shares to the company, and the company uses that for new employees!
How do partners/employees make money with it?
Sell their stock for money, or stocks owned may pay dividends, or both.
When you hold stock, don't you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
Yes. But only a small percentage of the employees are retiring and selling their stock at any given time. There are usually limits on how and when employee stock awards can be sold before retirement.
And how do you hire somebody?
The usual way. After hiring, hires receive stock as a part of their compensation.
Do you sell your shares to the person at no cost or something?
It's just part of their compensation. Longer tenure employees end up with more stock earned over time, and may also receive more stock per pay period to reward loyalty.
Implied question: If employees can sell stock won't the company eventually be publicly traded?
There lots of ways the rules for holding the stock can be structured to prevent that, while still having real monetary value to retirees.
It's a bit much for a post here, though. And it varies by country, I think.
Don't take this the wrong way, but this made me bust out laughing...
When you hold stock, don't you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
Boy, if that isn't just a perfect example of the perversion of our economic system. "You can't make ACTUAL money with it, you can only make money by participating the meta gambling game."
No, stock entitles you to dividends, which is just a fancy way of saying "a share of the profits". Like, a company brings in A amount of money (gross income) in a year, spends B of that on payroll and whatnot (expenses), maybe puts away C of that into a savings or spending account, and everything that's left, D, gets given to the owners. If you have stock in the company, that's you.
Of course, dividends are generally very small (like, think savings interest) compared to what you can make trading and speculating, so it's never good enough for the rich.
It's also rather common for companies to pay no dividends, because they just put all the leftover money into C. Which isn't even necessarily bad, it's generally built on the idea that keeping the money in the company will give the company more room for growth, I.E. raising the stock price, with the assumption that that will be worth more than the dividends may have been. But for so many companies, that just never ends. Sooner or later, the growth won't be sustainable, and many companies just collapse under their own weight, leaving the stock worthless.
No need to be so condescending. I'm very financially literate and I had a similar question - because dividends are so small and rare nowadays that they just didn't cross my mind.
There is a city in Spain called Mondrago. I first heard about it years ago.
The way it was brought up to me was that the people there are happy. And we should also be happy. But why are they happier on average then others.
My favorite part too is that this is capitalism. Its not communism. It isn't socialism. You can bring this to the right wing whoevers and argue that this is a better way.
Intellectually honest people that for whatever reason started out on the center-right can be convinced to support worker coops. The arguments in favor of them are personal responsibility arguments that center-right people tend to favor. I actually posted one such moral argument for worker coops in this community. Here is a link to that post:
I mean collective employee ownership can’t really be considered capitalism. Who are the capitalists in this economy? Everyone? It works very differently.
Generally most proponents of worker-coops are considered market socialists or anarchists, depending on their attitudes toward the state.
That said it can exist within capitalism, though it’s not clear whether capitalism will allow this ownership structure to expand significantly.
The capitalists are the workers. They collectively want to increase their profits and grow their company and invest in the markets. This isn't socialism, anarchy or anything else. It's capitalist. Socialism, communism are not good systems. Cooperatives sit in a neat place that bridges ideas between both major political groups.
Socialism means the workers control the means of production which is an antiquated term but can definitely mean direct ownership of businesses. So worker coops are certainly socialist. It doesn’t really make sense to speak of socialism as a single system since it’s more of a collection of ideas, most of which having never been tried. I assume you are talking about the USSR and those who followed its economic system. While I agree that that system was bad, they also didn’t grant workers real control over the economy and weren’t really socialist by the original definition. Even Lenin referred to their system as state capitalism, which they advocated for because marxists believe that capitalism has to advance to a certain stage before socialism can take root. The stated plan was to eventually move towards socialism but of course they never did because when do dictators ever want to give up power?
Most people think socialism is about free markets vs state planning but this is just Soviet and US propaganda. While some socialists did advocate for state planned economies, you can also have state planned capitalist economies such as the nazi war economy.
Anyway, that’s all esoteric political theory and not super relevant to worker coops which almost everyone agrees are pretty cool.
Problem I have here is that the government doesn't need to change. Markets would exist how they do. Hell even businesses would run as they do with private owners and capitalist investing freely. What I would suggest changing is any company who wants to go public to become something larger they should have to restructure as a cooperative or something similar where the employees have a majority stake in the shares while the rest can be sold publicly. so for me I feel like it's a bit of a mix but ultimately it's still all exists in a capitalist market with all the intention of being acting and behaving like capitalist.
Who are the capitalists in this economy? Everyone?
That's how capitalism should work, in its best and purest form. Everyone starts with an equal playing field and competes for profits. The competition promotes advancements in science and efficiency that make life better for everyone.
Obviously this is an unattainable ideal, but it's something to strive for.
Yea meritocratic society would be cool. But also getting there would be a shit show. I think we should hold it as an ideal to achieve but also accept that things don't need to be always be fair.
Shore up public education federally and give good evidence how private education is against meritocratic society and therefore against what capitalism should be. Every kid should have access to resources and standard education up until they are old enough to compete based on their own merit. And then it's a rat race.
If they made me king of America, that would be my number one policy objective.
Free masters degrees for anyone going into teaching. Eventually free college for all will be a goal, but first, teachers.
Massive investments into schools. I want a single class to have a maximum size of 7 students. This will require a lot more teachers but also a lot more physical space. In the 6 years it takes to train up new teachers, also build new buildings.
Hire all those teachers with masters degrees for very high salaries. Comparable with private industry. Be very strict with teaching credential requirements and require ongoing testing and studying to maintain a teacher's license. Hire 2-3 teachers aides per teacher.
How do we fund this? Nationalize all state education departments. School funding is no longer tied to how much the property in that neighborhood is worth. Base it purely on enrollment, with no incentives for helping kids graduate. Minimal restrictions on funding except strong oversight against administration hoovering up all the money for themselves.
I think if you get highly educated, well-paid teachers in small class settings with adequate funding and an assistant, the teachers will go above and beyond for students. You don't need so much top-down control. Hire very good teachers, and then give them the freedom and the ability to teach well.
One generation of this, and so many problems will fix themselves. The Republican party will collapse. Climate change will become the #1 priority (though hopefully by that point we've stabilized our GHG output and are in the sequestration phase). We'll be inoculated against misinfo. We'll have an explosion of new products and businesses.
That would be a significant departure from its original meaning. Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working. On the other hand, socialism is ownership or control of the economy by workers. Worker coops definitely could be considered a form of socialism, albeit it is probably the one that is most similar to capitalism since it still involves markets. So if you want to call worker coops capitalist then it would be both capitalist and socialist at the same time which is rather confusing to me.
But I mean words change, I think it’s a bit confusing to call this capitalism but maybe it would be more politically viable if we called it that. Lots of people are afraid of socialism because of the USSR and their atrocities.
That's what I like most about this. Is it's such a mix of both that maybe it is possible to have more people come around to the idea. Why have these Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos who become insanely wealthy at a scale that is practically more powerful than some countries all because they run a business. And not like they did it without going public. They amassed the wealth by becoming a publicly traded company. We should have better regulations.
Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working
I think that's only true because in early capitalism, only the existing wealthy were able to participate in the system. That's still the case to a large degree, but it's not an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It was just an incidental aspect of capitalism in the world as it existed.
True capitalists believe that the more competition, the better. Giving ordinary workers a higher stake in their company promotes a much broader level of competition. I think it's totally fair to describe worker co-ops in terms of capitalism, and as you said it would really help the branding.
I disagree. The concentration of wealth has always been a core feature of capitalism from the beginning, and the original definition was all about that feature of it. It’s what separates it from earlier merchant economies.
The only times we’ve seen this trend reverse is during major calamities, or by highly organized political action, usually by socialists or anarchists.
Capitalists claim to love competition and the system works much better in its presence. But the reality is that capitalism always trends towards monopoly without or fixed efforts to resist corporate power.
Coops will need organized support as well if they are to grow at the expense of traditionally owned businesses. For one thing, there needs to be a legal structure that outlines how they can operate, grow, etc. There also needs to be a source of capital for them to get off the ground. I personally think expecting workers to front this capital is unrealistic since most have little in the way of savings. Community banks and credit unions would be a great option for this credit source. Locally minted currencies could also help, though that’s a whole separate and quite complicated topic.
But yeah if you want to rebrand this as a new and improved form of capitalism I guess I won’t stop you, even if it’s technically incorrect.
I highly recommend this video if you’re interested in worker coops, how they work, and how they can be expanded in the modern economy: https://youtu.be/yZHYiz60R5Q?si=QZbmpUqgjpuz9IHp
I agree that it is not capitalism as it abolishes the employer-employee contract, but it isn't quite socialism either because it is technically compatible with private property.
In terms of expanding the worker coop sector, I actually have some ideas for getting startup funding for worker coops, and creating economic entities that would buy up capitalist firms and convert them into worker coops
So I get the idea that companies shouldn't be slaves to shareholders or the whims of a few people, but would the employees owning the company mean they are shouldering financial risk? Like if my company goes bankrupt I just lose my job, I am not responsible for covering their losses.
I think the liability would still be limited. If a company goes bankrupt it’s not like they’re going after shareholders’ personal assets to pay creditors.
Are you under the impression that private business owners have to cover losses..? Like that’s what a LLC is, a limited liability company. If it goes bankrupt the private owners are only liable for a part of it.
If a private business owners goes bankrupt, he just has to, gasp, find a job.
If a worker loses their job they might go fucking homeless.
I think what he's getting at is you lose both your job and your shares (which are presumably part of your retirement) if the co-op goes tits up. It's more risk.
What about not reaching bankruptcy level, but just funding losses for a bit, or funding expansion into new locations, equipment, etc
That doesn’t come out of your personal bank account tho… that all comes out of the company’s account.
And if not, we’re talking about smaaall time businesses owners. They are not relevant to this.
There would still be limited liability. Furthermore, they can share risks with investors, and self-insure against risk as well @general
They are. It also means that if the company goes under or starts doing poorly, they'll lose it all.
Imagine if you told people you put half of all your savings into the stock market. "Good job. That can really work for you"
Now imagine telling them you only put it in a single stock, with no diversification, you won't be able to sell until you're 59 1/2 years old, amd when you do sell, you have to spread the sale out over 6 years. "Wut?"
Like the article says. This company is a unicorn. Very few companies end up doing so well compared to the ones that start out. Employees that have been there over 15 years have over a million dollars in the stock options account (article claims). That's of course far from typical of a company structured this way. I'd imagine that if anyone just bought $20,000 of their stock 15 or 20 years ago and left it there until now, they may also have over a million dollars worth by now. You could sell it all whenever you'd like doing it that way.
There are 2 risk reduction strategies commitment-based and diversification based. The diversification-based strategy is the usual spread your eggs across many baskets strategy, but there is also a commitment-based dual strategy where you put your eggs in a few baskets and watch over them carefully.
Workers in coops can share risks with investors with non-voting preferred shares and other financial instruments. They can diversify by investing in other worker coops non-voting shares
Yes, but in the same way that proportional representation is just reinventing democratic process.
A lot of problems in our world today is created by shareholder model. People in Dubai owning and voting on the future of a company that sells drinks is more likely to be okay if that company drains a lake in Missouri than the people in Missouri would. They're ok to stagnate wages if profits are returned to share holders. They're ok if benefits are cut. It all stems from the idea that the people who make those decisions are making them as technical employees of the share holders. Because that's essentially what these companies become when they go public. The executives work for share holders. Those share holders have no connection to the way the company runs or makes choices. It's like a sociopath there no moral decion making by design.
By making companies employee owned you bring the local people to the table to help make decision. You place the executives and board ina position where they have to appease share holders and if a portion of those are employees you will begin to solve a lot of our current issues. Pay, workers rights, health benefits.
Likewise the employees also are more invested in the profits of the company. It goes both ways.
I think you're focusing too much on voting rights. Even if investors don't vote on the actions of a company, they have a financial interest in seeing that company grow, which incentivises unethical but profitable actions by the company. Worker owned or not.
It's actually at the heart of this. I haven't said it but think about ethical business decision making. How does a business make decisions. How are the decision makers working for. Why do they not make ethical choices.
Share holders do not care about the workers getting higher wages. They are not impacted if a company cuts corners and destroys the environment in someone else's backyard. They don't care if Nestle drains a lake in Missouri. The people who care about that are locals.
What if the executives who make the choices to do all those unethical actions actually are answering to locals. That's what these cooperatives and other models do. They include locals and put them in those relationship with the executive level where the executives need to make locals happy along with other shareholders. It injects more ethical decision making into business decision making. More than exist now.
This model works in place like Spain where it has led to decade's success during even economic downturns and is reflected in how happy the people are in areas that use this type of model.
What if the executives who make the choices to do all those unethical actions actually are answering to locals.
That's what I'm saying, dude. Sure, the locals have the voting rights. But there's also a huge pool of external investors who want to see the company make more money. They act as a leveraging effect on the value of the stock, for voters (employees) and non voters alike.
If the company decides to do something good like switch to 100% renewable energy, investors sell and everyone's stock loses value. The employees see their retirement fund tank.
If the company decides to do something bad like outsource all their labor to children in the 3rd world, investors buy and everyone's stock rises a lot.
Every decision that the company makes, they'll have the investors in mind.
This is a purely hypothetical concern that may have already been addressed...
Is there any mechanism that can align local co-op incentives with global problems? So would the factory worker in Missouri care just as little about climate change as the investor in Dubai?
Not quite. Voting rights over firm governance are non-transferable/inalienable. The employer-employee contract is abolished, and everyone is always individually or jointly self-employed.
Incorporating social objectives should be done at the level of associations of worker coops
Ok, but you've still introduced a profit motive, which is inevitably corrupting. Most extant shares of most companies today are non voting shares.
Lots of ways to do this. But overall the idea isn't that the only investment you can ever make is in the company you work for. What could happen is some shares are public and the rest are held by employees. Employees would own enough to reserve more power in decision making so that the employees have greater say in direction of the company. It also means private Business can also be private. Just make it so that if any company wants to go public they should be employee owned or similar.
Employees with stock face the same risk as any other stock owners: that the value of the stock will become zero, or just grow poorly.
DAVOS rich idiot bullshit about a future world where everyone important is a jet setting lease nomad with no personal property that just travels around and stays at airbnbs while having subscriptions to food prep services and clothing replacement services and leases for appliances and devices.
It's like a corporate hellscape version of the Star Trek universe replacing replicators with the bottom 80% of society struggling behind the scenes in gig work jobs to support the careless greed of the ultra wealthy for a pittance, unable to afford the very goods and services they gig work to distribute.
It's the wealthy's wet dream and they have been pushing it in one form or another for 15 years at least.
Combine an ESOP with a Public Benefit or B-corp and you get a pretty spicy variation on how a business can be organized.
Haven't watched the video yet, will do somlatwr, but if no one worked, we would over amshort time literally return to the stone age.
Who would make for for all? Would we have to scour for our own food again, each on their own? There is a reason we do farming, it is MUCH more efficient. A hand full people can make grain, beef, flour, and bread for hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It liberates all those other people to work on other things and make society grow.
If we all do our own food then in no time growth will stagnate, loads of people will fail to make their own food and decide to get it from others, and since there is no police anymore either (they're busy making and finding their own food) there is no protection either.
We would to have time to keep up infrastructure. More fertilizer would mean that there wouldn't be enough food produced for everyone, the world would go back to about 2-3billion humans. In on itself not a bad thing, there are too many humans, but 5-6 billion humans starving to death sucks.
No more modern medicine, no ody is working anymore, remember? Sucks to be a diabetic, bye bye. If you're trans, you're outta luck, you got bigger fish to fry.
We CAN'T stop working, we'd die out. If that video means something else, then the title is wrong.
What we can do is redistribute wealth. Nobody should need to work two jobs and still not be able to meet rent, that is absurd.
I also haven't watched the video, but also allow me to weigh in with some stuff I've heard.
The way I've heard it is that if people stopped going to their jobs they would very quickly take up necessary and actually productive work required by them and their communities.
I've heard it more in the context of bullshit jobs. For instance if I didn't have a job to go to then of course I'd pitch in on real work, like working some rows at the local farms, or covering some shifts at the local shops.
The way I've heard it is that if people stopped going to their jobs they would very quickly take up necessary and actually productive work required by them and their communities.
So they stood going to their job to....do another... Job? Like, really?
I know there are ahitty jobs out there, loads.of them, but they still have to be done. Do you think a supermarket magically restocks itself? People seem to want all the perks of, you know, the results of jobs, but nobody wants to do them. That's not how that works, that's not how anything works
And you're saying that if you didn't have a job them you'd do real work? That doesn't make any sense, do you hear yourself talking? If I didn't have a job then of course I'd get a job.. wut?
A job is a job. If someone is willing to pay you money to do something tmfor him, then that's a job. It may appear useless to you but likely it's not because someone is paying money for what you're doing. If you don't like what you're doing, get a different job. if you don't qualify due to low skill set, then work on that, get more skills, trian yourself in something, take free courses on the internet, whatever it takes.
But stop with this "we don't want to work so that we can work in our community" shit.
I think you've got stuck on a semantic point. The distinction is between working for money and working for utility.
Both rely on incentives, just different ones. Money doesn't have to be tied to actual value or utility.
Dude, what are you even talking about?
You still work. You'll still have a boss because work still needs to be coordinated or group output would fall to single digit percentages of what's actually possible. You will still have to pick upshitty tasks because somebody has to...
Taking money out of that equation is the semantic, that is the least of the issue, but also the issue that actually makes things easier, you get a generic interchangeable good that you can use to purchase whatever it is that you need. You want to get rid of the one thing that makes things actually easier.
Thanks for your reply. You could even still use money in the process as long as accumulating more of it (or capital more specifically) wasn't the goal of the work. You see a kind of diet version of this for example with public benefit corporations. Obviously, working for one of those would definitely be a job, though.
Anyway I'm getting way off the original point (which I actually don't remember), but I think you get the picture I'm painting.
Look, like it or not, but capitalism is absolutely the most powerful system for people to improve and grow. We need to use it in a limited and controlled fashion (very strict laws against monopoly, etc) to fund a socialist network on too of that that uses the funds to ensure everyone had free healthcare, free education, housing where needed, etc. make sure no-one can brote than 10 times richer than the poorest person out there by applying taxes as needed, more money,ore taxes.
What if there was just a law to cap the compensation in that the highest compensation must be at most 10x (Or whatever a reasonable number may be). If your lowest paid salary is 50k, the max salary for CEO would be 500k. If the CEO wants more money, everyone needs to get more money.
That's what some cooperatives have voted on. Mondragon is an example.
So as with everything I feel like the best solution is to have a system that gives people the incentive to place these restrictions on ourselves rather than force it through laws.
We don't appreciate opinion and perspective enough. We all seem to accept how it is as the default. But if you have a corporation where all employees hold a bit of power collectively as if the business is the sum of all parts, then it would be insane for someone like Musk or Bezos to exist with their wealth. It would be considered stealing
i want to own a conglomerate that only owns companies that are owned by their employees
Great idea. My preference is for a return to the family economy. I want to see family owned businesses where all the workers are family members or their friends.
If you look here, all the jobs are above minimum wage.
I just had an interview there last week and they were only paying minimum wage with an opportunity to get a $0.50 raise after 6 months. And keep in mind, the minimum wage in California is $15/hour.
RTFA
Every year, those employees get a percentage of their salaries in company stock. During Central States’ worst year, employees earned the equivalent of 6 percent of their pay in stock, during their best they earned 26 percent. Last year, an employee earning $100,000 a year received $26,000 worth of stock in their account. As the company has grown, the value of that stock has averaged 20 percent returns annually, outperforming the stock market.
Absolutely not and if you think about the implications, you'd come to the same conclusion.
One of the most successful breweries in America is owned by its employees. New Belgium.
They did not crumble and fall apart because of "evil socialism". They flourished because every single worker had a vested interest in making the business grow.
Executives wonder why their employees are so unmotivated. Give them motivation. Not pizza parties
Employee ownership would save this nation from its spiral towards indentured servitude. 60% of the population currently lives month to month. You're telling me every single one of them is lazy? Bullshit.
The American dream has been stolen from us, it will take it back one way or another.
You can keep sucking on the nuts of billionaires pretending you will be one of them, I will fight for the working class.
With all due respect, one company doesnt proof a thing. Neither do 10 or 100. If it was such a successful business model, there were a lot more.
In the end, most people want to work 9to5, get their salary and not bother with the company anymore than that. Barely anyone would want to partly "own" the company beyond a stock share maybe.
Right just how people don't want to own houses.... Consider that you might be out of touch with the average American
There's a huge cleft between "This one specific brewery" and "every company" though. And honestly I'm neither on expert on company law nor on socioeconomics and market economics, so I'm not one to ask. Maybe it'd be better if every company was employee owned. Or maybe not. Or maybe it would change fuck all. I can't know, not my area of expertise.
And this would not be the kind of global decision you'd want to make on a gut feeling, tbh.
I made a post in this community of a moral argument for mandating employee-owned companies. It isn't based on a gut feeling. It is based on the theory of inalienable rights. Here is a link to that post:
Okay so apparently a corporation bought them out in 2019. Looks like we are falling one by one corporate interest.
There used to be 100 government contractors know there are 4.
There used to be dozens of Telecom providers, now there are 3
You know how many places I've lived where I've had a choice of Internet provider? 0 Functionally a monopoly
I'm so close to giving up on this country because of the greed that is tearing it apart from the inside while everyone concerns themselves with talentless celebrities, Donald Trump included
I'm done being complacent. Something has to give
There is more than 4 government contractors. I don't even have to ask which government to assert that.
Of course there are more than four, but an enormously disproportionate amount of our tax dollars go to four of them.
20% goes to Lockheed Martin alone.
General Dynamics swallowed up all of the companies I worked for in the first half of my career.
You probably also think that because there are thousands of small farmers that they actually have any market share.
The big fish are eating the small ones and getting bigger and bigger. This is what happens when you relax antitrust enforcement. Why do you think we keep getting involved in wars we have nothing to do with? These four have raked in billions facilitating the death of our children overseas for decades
Economics and trickle down is working so great right? Republicans would drive us into slavery we gave them the reins. And yes it is political just look at Reagan and his policies and how they have affected us today
So you only read the one part that you wanted to read?
You're cool with one company taking 1/5 of the defense tax dollars? That is a fact not an ideology or opinion.
The consolidation of these companies is not an opinion or an ideology it is a fact. Reality
Do you want to argue the points orrr.....
Waitrose a giant supermarket chain (and mid upper class too) in the UK also owned by employees. So no I don't really.
Uh.. no. This is exactly how people with that mentality cause companies to find ways to hire less humans and depend more on technologies.
Keep it up, you're only asking for really bad consequences.
"if we keep talking about freedom, our masters will have even more reason to abuse us!"
Coward.
I'm thinking like a business owner. If my employees are going to demand to own my company, I'm going to fire them and find a way to permanently replace humans.
Coward, more like a realist.
Here's a thought though, start thinking about creating your own business and stop being a wage slave.
Oh you think your the master and this it's okay. My bad, your not a coward. Your scum. Literal human rot. Embodiment of greed and selfishness. A person like you has no place holding power over others, and in a just world you would be punished for it. Unfortunately we don't live in a just world. We live in a world where not only are you rewarded for your greed but to the point you consider it a virtue.
Consider the morality of yourself for a moment.
As for "creating my own business", you silly billy, I'm going into teaching. Ya know, a selfless job ment to benefit all. I live by my morals, instead of looking for ways to profit off my lack of them.
Keep on rubbing your coins together mr scrooge. See if it warms your grave someday.
You're going into teaching? haha... Good grief.
This person is going into, "teaching". Can't even decipher between, "your" and "you're".
You're a joke. Thanks for further solidifying why public education is complete and utter shit.
I ain't an English teacher, and I'm actually working on that exact grammatical deficit. My bad I didn't approach your dumbass with the same rigor I approach an essay or will with my future students. You ain't exactly worth that time bub.
What do you think corporate shareholders expect of a publicly traded company? Especially when in most industries, labor is their number 1 expense?