Basically it's about making every decision collectively...or having the ordinary system where somebody in the organization decides by him or herself certain questions. — ssu

I wasn't asking what it was 'about' I was asking whether you had any evidence that it was difficult.

Of course you utterly fail to recognize that somebody who is 20 years old has his whole work career in front of him. Not so with someone that will retire in few years. — ssu

I'm talking about safety nets, what does having their career ahead of then have to do with safety nets?

Statistics show quite well that it's the oldest segment of the workforce who faces PERMANENTLY losing their jobs doesn't reach your mind. — ssu

Again, what does permanence have to do with safety nets? The young suffer higher levels of unemployment that the old. Whether the smaller number of unemployed old are likely to remain that way is irrelevant to a discussion about which group bears the brunt of bankrupt businesses.

when you need to cut back the workforce, which would you as an employer start if two persons are qualified: the one who has a lower salary and far more work years ahead of him or the one that has a higher wage and will have to be replaced sooner? — ssu

Again, the burden of unemployment is bourne mostly by the young. You speculating about the motives of employers doesn't change that. My comment was about the safety net different age groups have. Even if older people were more likely to be made redundant it doesn't change the fact that they have a more substantial safety net.

It takes the average person 43 days to find, interview for and start a new job. With 1 in 5 workers age 40+ reporting not getting at least one job due to age discrimination, it’s no wonder it takes older employees longer to find a job.

So? Again, what has this got to do with the burden of unemployment (still bourne mostly by the young even in America https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm), and what has it got to do with the safety net these age groups have?

One-half of the unemployed aged 60 to 64 were long-term unemployed.

The duration of unemployment has nothing to do with the financial cushioning to withstand it. It's good that these people are unemployed. With the young still bearing the majority of the unemployment in general and not having the savings to support themselves, more of the older generation should be taking long term unemployment and giving their jobs to the young.

when we take into account that many Americans don't have savings and the country doesn't have a welfare safety net, then hope you understand who is in more peril when a economic slump comes around: the 20 year old or the 50 year old worker that get laid off. — ssu

I've just demonstrated that. It's the 20 year old. On average, they'll have one tenth of the savings and are more likely to be unemployed at any given time. I appreciate the efforts with evidence and all, but it's still the 20 year old. Less money, less housing security, more likely to be unemployed. The fact that, if a 50 year old is laid off they'll be more likely to suffer extended single periods of unemployment doesn't alter the overall picture.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically? — Xtrix

No, a democracy is an inefficient form of operations management. It turns out most peoples ideas are bad and its best to ignore them.

(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public?

(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation?

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?

(4) Who decides what to do with the profits?

(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?

(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products)

[There is actually an answer to this question]

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?

Truly interested in answers. — Xtrix

These are legal and pragmatic questions and most responses are variable depending upon the particular corporation. If you're really interested, you can read up on C corps, S corps, for profit, not for profit, LLCs, mutual companies, and I'm sure there are more. Some are public and some are closely held. There are also municipalities and professional corporations. I'm just thinking off the top of my head. It just depends upon what is needed and how people might want to set them up. You have other sorts of organizations that aren't incorporated, like school boards and the like, but that are independent entities.

The reasons to incorporate might include raising capital, limiting liability, creating longevity, etc.

All of your questions would have different answers depending upon the specific company you're asking about. Sole proprietorships might incorporate at some point, yet there might be no noticeable difference to the employee.

There is great flexibility in how you can set them up.

There are some considerations to ponder here, namely that you are bound to only have a few people who truly understand the democratic process, but I think a potential solution to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of democratic enterprises could be the creation of complex democratic system.

The consensus-based decision making model, for instance, is something that a lot of people within the libertarian Left try out, which occasionally is lauded for the maximal stake that it offers its participants, but does quite often fail, as, anytime a decision needs to be come to, a meeting needs to be held for long enough for a consensus to be met. Certain Anarchists will tell you all sorts of things about it, even admonishing democracy altogether, an entirely nebulous enterprise, in my opinion, but that is more or less the inherent flaw.

It does work well, however, in small groups that don't have to make a lot of decisions. If you don't require an absolute consensus, if you somehow adapt to consistent minority opinions, as is part and parcel to the project, you can avoid the problem of that one or two people may repeatedly effectively veto any and/or all progress in this or that regard. Though I don't have any real experience within said organizations, I think that this is both fairly common and effective within small-scale mutual aid organizations.

In larger Anarchist organizations, attempts to institute a kind of pure consensus-based decision making model do quite often result in that, well, nothing gets decided upon whatsoever.

Once an organization grows to a certain size, there does seem to be a need to elect delegates, of which, one-member, one vote, seems to be the tried and true method. What doesn't necessarily have to be done is to consider the delegates as having been granted some sort of arbitrary authority over their particular organizational dominion. In the Democratic Socialists of America, for instance, of which, I would give the critique that there was a generalized disinterest in actually reading the by-laws, something that could raised as a point of contention to what I am offering in general, you would elect a chair and co-chair of each committee, the committees would have meetings and decide upon what to do, usually, after an hour or so long conversation, via a standard vote, and the chair or co-chair would go before everyone at the general meeting, wherein there would be a set of discussions and then everyone present at the general meeting would then again vote, which I assume is according to its by-laws, but, as I didn't read them either, I don't really know. They have kind of an elaborate process of adapting so that the organization can live up to its name, but only really the people who have been there forever know anything whatsoever about it.

There is a lot that you could say either for or against the DSA, but I would generally contend that it is an overall pretty good organization.

Anyways, what I'm suggesting is that, in so far that a larger Anarchist organization, or just simply anyone else who is interested in participatory could do, in so far that they would like to adopt the consensus-based decision making model, is to create a dynamic democratic system wherein it could be utilized in small groups, such as committees, as well as for, perhaps necessitating certain caveats, certain key decisions, an example of which, to use the DSA as an example, could be something like both the decision to have endorsed Bernie Sanders and how to do so, as some people wanted to directly participate within the campaign undertaken by the Democratic Party and some people wanted to undertake a campaign solely within the DSA, as such a decision effects the overall direction of the entire movement. For practical considerations, however, such as electing a treasurer after someone leaves the organization, the organization could fall back upon the one member, one vote method.

I should, perhaps, point out that, for all of the extensive knowledge, feuds, partial alliances, revelry, and disdain that I have for the Anarchist fringe, I do have a fairly limited experience within actual Anarchist organizations, and, so, this is all really fairly speculative, as it's mostly just based upon what I've read online here and there from various parties for various reasons.

I guess that what I'm suggesting is that a dynamic and adaptive synthesis of various forms of participatory democracy could be applied so as to both maximize a individual member's stake within an organization and ensure a certain degree of effectiveness and efficiency. The key problem with this, which I have already pointed to with the DSA's by-laws, is that individual members may be unlikely to understand how a complex democratic process works. This, however, I think has more to do with interest and engagement than anything else. The DSA, for instance, became relatively popular due to the coordinated campaign in favor of the election of Bernie Sanders, but, despite a significant increase in membership, will probably return to the relative obscurity that it previously had. The reason for this, I think, though a paradoxical caveat to my being admitted to the organization as an anarcho-pacifist, is due to that it is a "big tent" organization. Anyone who is a socialist can be a member. I am an anarcho-pacifist who defines anarchism as "libertarian socialism" and, so, do qualify. You can also be a member of the DSA as a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist, at least, in so far that you agree to that it is a democratic organization whose socialist vision is also democratic, which kind of results in an endless standoff between the recent Libertarian Socialist Caucus and the more authoritarian marxists in the organization. People within the far-Left develop all sorts of ideas and notions for all sorts of reasons, and, so, I kind of understand their desire to effectively convert said people to some other variant of marxism, but, were I to create a political organization or movement, I would probably make the libertarian aspect of my aforementioned "libertarian socialism" requisite. Perhaps, that's a certain kind of personal preference, though.

Anyways, all of this is to say nothing of the structure of something like a corporation, however. Personally, I am emphatically in favor of prefigurative politics. I don't think that people who are in favor of participatory democracy can ever hope to establish it without practicing it within their own organizations. Libcom, whom you may not consider relevant outside of the libertarian Left, but are actually some of its foremost theorists, aside from, perhaps, the waning trend of Communization, are fairly pessimistic of this general line of reasoning, even to the point of being ostensibly opposed to it. You see this in their critique of parecon. They generally think something along the lines of that only the establishment of libertarian communism, i.e. an effective revolution, insurrection, or near magical peaceful establishment of an Anarchist commune, can produce communist society, all of which is to emphasize that things like participatory economics, participatory democracy, cooperatives, or even mutual aid organizations can not cope with conditions under the current set of wealth and power relations that exist now, which they, in good faith, would just be willing to call "capitalism", which is not wholly untrue, the aforementioned Mondragon Corporation being an example of theirs, but I think their line of reasoning is all-too pessimistic, if not indicative of a certain sectarian militant zealotry. If you go into prefigurative politics without any illusions of actually reifying communist society, as per the general idea, I don't think that such harsh critique is really necessary to prevent anyone from becoming delusional.

Alas, however, I have been boring everyone endlessly and still am not quite on topic.

Similarly to organizations of the libertarian Left itself, should cooperatives adopt a dynamic and adaptative democratic process, perhaps undergoing a fairly gradual transition to some form of economic democracy, then, I do think that, over time, the seeming need for a hierarchical structure, will more or less disappear. A small shop that is run as a cooperative starting out, I do think, just can immediately be established as a kind of pure cooperative and test and try and adapt to what it needs to as such. I do imagine that something like a book store, though ultimately requiring some sort of administrative decisions, can just be run as a cooperative from the immediate outset.

Let's say that Jeff Bezos becomes taken by the cooperative movement, deciding that it is the way of the future, and wants to transform Amazon into a cooperative. I would contend that, even Amazon, though it would probably look a lot different, can be run as a pure cooperative. Perhaps, that is a point of contention that we can discuss, however? What would seem to be unwise is to overhaul such a large company as such overnight. Bezos could, instead, phase in the cooperative elements over time, allowing for the chance to adapt and develop a dynamic democratic process without risking the wholesale bankruptcy of the corporation.

A short note about complexity:

There seems to me, within any given democratic process, to be kind of a Golden Mean between dynamic adaptability and over-complexity. If the democratic process of any social organization whatsoever is complex to a point of requiring a degree in Sociology, specializing in social organization, to understand, then, it will necessarily be too arcane to be effective. You see this within our Liberal democracy with Law. An organization should be able to adapt its process when situations demand that it does, however.

Another short note in defense of my having been in the DSA, for anyone who is curious:

Anarcho-Pacifism is about as popular as anarcho-nihilism was a few years ago, which is to say that there are about seven of us in the world. Needless to say, regardless as to what political organization I join, in part, though only in part, as I kind of agree with Jacques Camatte and Simone Weil, though not completely, as my speculative foray into organizational structures ought to illicit, because of that I just don't currently have any political allies, I am somewhat necessarily engaged in entryism. What the effective political praxis of democratic socialism and anarcho-pacifism turn out to be, however, is effectively the same thing, which is a gradualist transition to participatory democracy with only a slight emphasis upon reform. The real difference between democratic socialism and anarcho-pacifism is in the choice of allies. They align themselves with a broad Left, whereas I would do so with a broad anti-authoritarian movement. I'm no longer in the DSA or even really the anarchist movement anymore, though, and, so, this is all kind of a lot of armchair political philosophy.

Democracy works basically if everybody also shares the responsibility of the actions. If voters choose bad politicians, they in the end will feel it. That is extremely hard to do in a workplace. — ssu

If workers choose bad managers, they can fire them. I don't see why you consider that "extremely hard."

Everybody simply cannot decide with a vote on every issue! Hence in real life, not the ideological fairy tale castle where these structures of companies are larger than life issues, big Cooperatives function quite as big Corporations. Many wouldn't notice the difference in ordinary life between the two. — ssu

Yes, but this is just your unfamiliarity with cooperatives I think. It's not that "everybody decides with a vote on every issue," that would be, as you rightly point out, absurd.

Not only do big cooperatives function as big corporations -- they often ARE big corporations. I'm not seeing the difficulty...

Listening to stakeholders might be a good idea. Yet in some technical question it's simply hypocrisy to assume that the young intern and the 30-year professional have equal say. — ssu

They shouldn't, any more than it's absurd to suggest that your average voter could be President, or mayor, or even councilman. Yet we all still vote nonetheless. The danger, it's true, is in the ignorance and irrationality of the majority of people. But that's always been a risk in democracy.

Yet some have top-down structures simply exist to coordinate the actions of everybody. — ssu

There's nothing inherently wrong with top-down structures, with giving people compensation for work, with making a profit, or with structures of power, control, and authority -- provided it's legitimate. The current organization of most corporations is illegitimate, in my view. A cooperative is a better model than a capitalist one. The former is democratic, the latter is explicitly un-democratic (despite their being some very nice CEOs and very good companies to work for). The capitalist model is illegitimate and thus immoral -- just as slavery was illegitimate and immoral, despite their being benevolent slaveowners.

An essential feature of cooperatives is that the workers run the enterprise democratically. They're their own board of directors. Rather than the board of directors being voted in by investors, they're voted in by everyone who works in the company. The system we have now, predominantly, is this: one share, one vote; 1,000,000 shares, 1,000,000 votes, etc. This is rigged in favor of those with enough wealth to buy more shares and more votes. Thus, they control the board of directors, who both can hire and fire CEOs, distribute profits, and decide what to produce and where -- by law.

That's the problem, at bottom: it's undemocratic. The capitalist model of corporate governance doesn't even pretend to be democratic. Yet there's no good reason why it should exist, any more than there's reason why a plutocracy or oligarchy or monarchy should exist -- I think we're moved past that as a people. If we haven't, then we should stop professing our love for freedom, liberty, democracy, and autonomy. True, throughout history the beneficiaries (the winners) of any system will vehemently resist changes, and will employ intellectuals and all other resources at their disposal to control public opinion, but that doesn't mean we have to be stuck in it. If we can't question it, it's simply another kind of religion.

Democracy isn't an answer to everything, it works extremely well in some areas, not on others. Hence one should be careful just how to implement it. Practical thinking is far better than just ideological perseverance. — ssu

Which is why this has been tried and has succeeded in many cases. Examples are all over. I mentioned Mondragon because it's one of the biggest, but there are others as well. I like to include Ocean Spray, because they're close to where I live. Very successful, very well known brand. Run as a co-op.

When you look into the structures of these companies, you find many interesting facts. There's a trial and error that goes on, and mistakes which are made and learned from, but the basic idea is correct. Remember that forming the United States wasn't an easy and smooth endeavor either, but the underlying justification survived. Likewise the transition from a slave system -- very difficult, still ramifications to this day.

If you then say, "Nope, from now on the leaders and managers are just "team members" along with everybody else and everybody together has to make the decisions", what do you think will happen? So... you vote? Or do you have to have a consensus? On what matters? Just for starters, when is someone in the workforce capable doing a decision on his or on her own? — ssu

You speak as though these were pie-in-the-sky ideas. You're aware that they already exist, and that they're often successful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ

(Disclosure: I really dislike Michael Moore's tone and air of self-righteousness, but concentrate more on the actual people he's talking to -- also, the facts mentioned check out. This is only one example.)

Basically it's about making every decision collectively — ssu

Yes but this isn't what anyone is advocating. This is a straw man.

It's not about taking a collective vote if I decide to use the bathroom or exercise discretion in my role. It's not about getting rid of division of labor. It's not about abolishing managers, or coordinators, or departments, or CEOs/presidents, or paying everyone the same amount of money, or anything like that.

It's about giving everyone a vote for leadership positions and having workers elect the board of directors rather than investors. There would also be many worker council meetings (like staff meetings) where everyone voices their opinions, etc. Michael Albert has gone into details about what this may entail, some problems that may arise, how to deal with them, etc. He calls this participatory economics, and it's worth taking a look at. I don't agree with every part of it, but it gives an idea of the micro-level activity of a democratic workplace.

Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong? — Alkis Piskas

Political philosophy.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?
— Xtrix
No, a democracy is an inefficient form of operations management. It turns out most peoples ideas are bad and its best to ignore them. — Cheshire

Mondragon Corporation would disagree with you.

Sorry to hear you prefer dictatoriship to democracy within the workplace. False consciousness knows no bounds.

What I am curious of, though, as I have a certain degree of self-interest in clarifying my general praxis in the vain hopes of finding like-minded allies who lurk The Philosophy Forum, as, even Peace News and I have theoretical differences, though I do consider for them to be fairly amicable, I do understand you ignoring my lengthy post about all of this, is as to what you think of the idea that the cooperative movement can be put to the effect of establishing anarchist society.

On some level, there is an inherent subterfuge to such a venture, as we can only really seek to co-opt the movement in our favor. I, however, do genuinely endorse free association, and, so, would prefer a strategic alliance with and not a struggle for control over the cooperative movement. To tell you the full truth, only some anarchists really care enough about free association to also agree to do so.

You may think this somewhat irrelevant, but, what I am going to flat out tell you is that who supports co-ops are anarchists and anarchist sympathizers, and, so, the only people who you are going to find who have any interest in such ideas are, well, us.

Thoughts?

To sort of emphasize this point, the Basque region of Spain was a stronghold for the Republican movement during the Spanish Civil War.

There are people like, let's say, Astra Taylor, who were involved with Occupy whom you could find so as to put such a project into effect, but most of them do have some sort of vague anarchist sympathies and just simply kind of are, among the better of us, which is to say the people who don't feel a need to do things like get into shouting matches at protests, our allies among left-wing Liberals.

Perhaps, I do assume too much, but is seems kind of like you're trying to avoid the choir that this preaches to.

Mondragon Corporation would disagree with you.

Sorry to hear you prefer dictatoriship to democracy within the workplace. False consciousness knows no bounds. — Xtrix

I actually looked it up. It turns out they wouldn't. They are worker-owned but not managed. They have a very pleasant company culture even though there is a built in 2 tier system between workers and worker-owners. Unfortunately, my preferences don't dictate reality any better than yours do. In order to survive a capitalist global market the option of managed by worker democracy fails viability at the necessary scale at which production is most profitable.

Sorry, you are quick to judge and confuse other's cognitive fault for your own ignorance.

These are legal and pragmatic questions and most responses are variable depending upon the particular corporation. If you're really interested, you can read up on C corps, S corps, for profit, not for profit, LLCs, mutual companies, and I'm sure there are more. Some are public and some are closely held. — Hanover

True, but as I said: "I'm talking about large-cap corporations." Mostly fortune 500 companies (Wal Mart, Amazon, Microsoft, Exxon, Boeing, 3M, Pfizer, GM, etc), and generally publicly traded. I'm familiar with the rest.

The questions were in part to see where people were in terms of knowing about the internal workings of a corporation.

All of your questions would have different answers depending upon the specific company you're asking about. — Hanover

Very true. I hope I've clarified better which specific ones I'm talking about.

In larger Anarchist organizations — thewonder

Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions.

You may think this somewhat irrelevant, but, what I am going to flat out tell you is that who supports co-ops are anarchists and anarchist sympathizers, and, so, the only people who you are going to find who have any interest in such ideas are, well, us.

Thoughts? — thewonder

Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work.

I'm sure many others agree, in theory, with all of this as well. Fine. I'm glad. But this is less about abstraction than about concrete reality: there are such co-ops out there, and they should be looked to as an alternative form of corporate governance.

I actually looked it up. It turns out they wouldn't. They are worker-owned but not managed. — Cheshire

Many of those managers come from the workers, as I'm sure the Wikipedia article will tell you. But that's completely irrelevant. The workers run the company, democratically. No one is claiming, as I've said repeatedly, that every decision is made by majority vote. Like our politcal system in the United States, when we vote for our senators and congressman and President, no one argues that because we don't then get to vote on every decision from that point on it's somehow not democratic.

The majority of its workers voted the following rule, for example: The highest paid cannot get more than 8/9 times what the least paid person gets. I think that's a good rule. Decided democratically. Remember, too, that Mondragon is basically a holding company of many co-ops. So it differs depending on where you look. But it's run democratically.

Sure, if we construct a ridiculous straw man by defining corporate democracy as "workers vote on everything," then of course it's inefficient -- ridiculous, in fact, at least in large companies. But since this is just a fantasy and a straw man, it's not worth taking seriously. Apparently neither are you.

It does have something to do with anarchism, though. You see, when Fransisco Franco declared himself to be the King of Spain, a civil war began between an alliance of communists, anarchists, and liberals, the "republicans", and fascists and monarchists, the "nationalists". That political history almost definitely inspired José María Arizmendiarrieta, who escaped the firing squad due to administrative oversight, to create the Mondragon Corporation. It is because of that, in the Basque region of Spain, a loosely affiliated set of republican forces, whom we can both adequately and inadequately characterize as anarchists, were willing to live, fight, and die for both the lofty republican ideals that they shared and in opposition to the obvious threat of fascism that we now even have this idea, and it is a good one, of a vaguely participatory economic corporate structure, that of the cooperative.

Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions. — Xtrix

Please do not offer me the pretense of knowledge that you have over a political philosophy that you do not support again. There is no reason to be condescending. Perhaps, you are aware of our political differences, but I could probably you a lot more about them than you will ever know.

Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work. — Xtrix

While that may sound very reasonable and open-minded, it just simply is not true. You're not going to find anyone who supports cooperatives who doesn't chart in the bottom left quadrant of the Political Compass. While you can bill and may even be able to sell cooperatives as appealing to some sort of a-political humanism, which Arizmendiarrieta did, and I don't even really mind, upon entering any form of political debate whatsoever, you will find that such ideas are considered to be "left-wing", if not even "radical".

All of which is to say nothing of what qualms I have with these sort of ostensive a-political initiatives. In so far that both parties are willing to agree to some form of free association, which is to say not to make an attempt to secure any agency over the other, the only kind of ethical socio-political relationship, should such left-wing liberals, and let's be honest, unless you are a very open-minded Libertarian, you can only be a left-wing liberal, be unwilling to ally themselves with us, which you clearly are, though, as a rather isolated anarchist, I do understand as to how and why this is, then it would seem, and I do mean this metaphorically, as there are clear examples of successful cooperatives outside of such caricature, that the cooperative movement should be exclusively for attractive, young, reasonably well well off hipsters who are more than willing to dress as if it was there only chance to see Parquet Courts on a daily basis behind the counter of a coffee shop, or, in short, what, according to Karl Marx is emphatically not, but people do just simply say is "petit bourgeois".

A relatively short note about hipster coffee shops:

The qualms that I have are not with these establishments per se, as I am likely to mill about them, but moreso with that they just won't hire me. It's not that I don't have an eclectic set of interests in music, literature, and film or cool enough clothes purchased on consignment, though there are certain aesthetic considerations to take in there; it's that I am not of a certain aesthetic, intellectual, or socio-economic class. There are a set of circumstantial conditions to be met so as to be of either an aesthetic or intellectual class, but, having a certain degree of monetary wealth, or, at least, growing up with it, is certainly an advantage. To apply the metaphor to what I'm driving at, it's kind of like how some people just don't make it within certain hip gentrifying parts of town on account of not being young, urban, and professional enough to afford an increase in the price of renting an apartment. All of which, I mean as a social critique so as to be willing to put into question, despite what is veritable of it, what you might call, "New School chic", particularly within activist circles.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the cooperative movement, though, aside from its advocates. There's a certain degree of mutual mistrust between anarchists and left-wing liberals, though, which, for both sides, has, at least, some basis, and, so, it is all somehow understandable. I'm just kind of perpetually vexed by never being able to get anything off of the ground. I left the anarchist movement anyways, though. Oh well.

Many of those managers come from the workers, as I'm sure the Wikipedia article will tell you. But that's completely irrelevant. The workers run the company, democratically. No one is claiming, as I've said repeatedly, that every decision is made by majority vote. Like our politcal system in the United States, when we vote for our senators and congressman and President, no one argues that because we don't then get to vote on every decision from that point on it's somehow not democratic. — Xtrix

Ok, you know it isn't run democratically in a literal direct democracy. But, you believe it is a representative democracy. It's not, so your analogy fails. In a very plainly obvious way.

Apparently neither are you. — Xtrix

Alright, your post is just rhetoric followed by contradiction. But, I thought this choice to sign it with an insult was cute. So, here's the secret. A co-op is a way to get people to work harder for less money with the belief they own something. But, if they lose that job can they sell off the mill they were running? No, cause they don't own anything. If anything it's a bloated labor union with forced capital infusion by it's own employees. It's a union that is not opposed to the company? Sure fire way to prevent exploitation there; I admire your vigor for your bad argument and intolerable persona.

But, you believe it is a representative democracy. — Cheshire

No.

It is both worker owned and partly worker managed. Not all the managers are from the workforce -- some are brought from outside. Who decides that? The workers who own the company, of course.

So, here's the secret. A co-op is a way to get people to work harder from less money with the belief they own something. — Cheshire

They're paid better than most corporations, actually; and they don't "believe" they own something, they do own something: namely, the company. You said so yourself. So who's contradicting himself?

But, if they lose that job can they sell off the mill they were running? No, cause they don't own anything. — Cheshire

But they do. You're simply living in a dreamworld I guess.

I admire your vigor for your bad argument and intolerable persona. — Cheshire

I admire your attempt to cover for the fact that you're struggling to understand all of this. Fairly common, though.

It's quite simple: democracy at work. We're for it or against it. If you're against it, then by all means be happy with working at companies in which you have absolutely no say, for a wage determined by people who make more in an hour than you make in a year, Uncle Tom.

I admire your attempt to cover for the fact that you're struggling to understand all of this. Fairly common, though.

It's quite simple: democracy at work. We're for it or against it. If you're against it, then by all means be happy with working in companies of which you have absolutely no say, for a wage determined by people who make more in an hour than you make in a year, Uncle Tom. — Xtrix

It's not and I know, because I worked in metal box in 110F making other people rich. Then sat through more sociology and economics lectures than you are aware of exist. Yes, there is a problem with the labor market functionally and morally. But, the people that both understand it and want to change it are fairly limited. Pretending a capitalist enterprise hangs co-op on the door will fix anything is the result of not knowing enough to understand your wrong. Yes, there is a problem. No, this is not the simple solution. On a side note I've never worked in a shop the was willing to own a Fagor machine tool, but I've heard stories. The devices basically self destruct every time you home them to machine reference. You are an asset to people that want to show the unreasonable nature of the opposition. You are helping your masters.

Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions.
— Xtrix

Please do not offer me the pretense of knowledge that you have over a political philosophy that you do not support again. — thewonder

Since the term "anarchism" is meaningless until it's explained, I have nothing to support. Certainly not here, which is not the topic under discussion, which is the structure of corporations. If you want to ramble on about your vast knowledge about anarchism, you're welcome to. This is why you repeatedly get ignored.

Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work.
— Xtrix

While that may sound very reasonable and open-minded, it just simply is not true. — thewonder

Yes, it is true. I know conservatives, Republicans, blue-collar workers, White-collar workers, and everyone in between, who want more say in their jobs, who want better wages, who want job security, a better work environment, etc. Most importantly, they don't give a damn about labels. The fact that you do, and want to turn this into a discussion about anarchism, is your own issue.

you will find that such ideas are considered to be "left-wing", if not even "radical". — thewonder

I don't care what they're labeled. Listen to conservative media --according to them, helping an old lady across the street is considered socialist. The infrastructure bill is being called "socialist," etc. Who cares?

Sorry, I stopped reading your post at this point. Too long -- and you haven't earned the assumption of relevance.

It's not and I know, because I worked in metal box in 110F making other people rich. — Cheshire

Which proves how well indoctrination works. To convince the slaves to love their slavery is an impressive feat, begging your pardon. I don't fault you for it.

Then sat through more sociology and economics lectures than you are aware of exist. — Cheshire

I don't consider this a merit. It probably accounts for the false consciousness you demonstrate.

Pretending a capitalist enterprise hangs co-op on the door will fix anything is the result of not knowing enough to understand your wrong. — Cheshire

You just aren't understanding what I'm saying, I'm afraid. I never once advocated for a capitalist enterprise window-dressing by claiming it's a co-op. Of course that wouldn't fix anything.

I'm advocating against the capitalist form of corporate governance. Plain and simple.

Yes, there is a problem. No, this is not the simple solution. — Cheshire

I don't think there are simple solutions either. Moving out of feudalism wasn't simple or quick or easy either. Ditto slavery. Ditto monarchy. These things take a long time, lots of discussions, lots of mistakes, lots of failures and successes over long periods of time. The co-op model is one alternative to a capitalist-run corporation, and I point that out because it's practical and provides demonstrable insights into alternative ways of running businesses. That's all. No magic bullet, no perfection, no utopia.

You are an asset to people that want to show the unreasonable nature of the opposition. You are helping your masters. — Cheshire

Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so.

:roll:

Since the term "anarchism" is meaningless until it's explained, I have nothing to support. — Xtrix

The shortest definition for anarchism is "libertarian socialism". Some people prefer to say that it is a political philosophy that attempts to reify the "abolition of all hierarchy", but, though I do think that that is more descriptive of its teleological goal, I don't, necessarily.

My point about cooperatives is that they do have a history that relates to anarchism, as the creator of the Mondragon Corporation narrowly escaped the firing squad during the Spanish Civil War.

My personal kvetch against this a-political, but anti-capitalist initiative that you have proposed is that you seem to want participatory economics, a libertarian socialist idea, without any libertarian socialists involved.

Sorry, I stopped reading your post at this point. Too long -- and you haven't earned the assumption of relevance. — Xtrix

I really don't understand why it is that you feel a need to make consistent demeaning quips, outside, of course, that it does happen to be a rhetorical strategy that offers you the pretense of intellectual superiority. Apt sophistry, pseud.

Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so. — Xtrix

Yes, because they are stupid ideas. If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder. The flex economy adopted to scale erases this deeper entrenchment solution. If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. If I can refuse work on the days I'm not paid enough, then I am in power. You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination.

The shortest definition for anarchism is "libertarian socialism". — thewonder

According to who?

Doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant.

My point about cooperatives is that they do have a history that relates to anarchism, as the creator of the Mondragon Corporation narrowly escaped the firing squad during the Spanish Civil War. — thewonder

Yes and Lenin had ties to Marx, and Biden has ties to Adam Smith, and I have ties to Fundamentalist Christianity. Fine. Now let's discuss the corporation.

My personal kvetch against this a-political, but anti-capitalist initiative that you have proposed is that you seem to want participatory economics, a libertarian socialist idea, without any libertarian socialists involved. — thewonder

Everyone is welcome, and everyone can be involved. I don't care what you call yourself. You're anarchist? Wonderful. Libertarian? Socialist? Communist? Conservative? Liberal? Makes no difference to me. I work with people from not only different political views, but religious as well -- from all kinds of cultures. What's the problem?

I really don't understand why it is that you feel a need to make consistent demeaning quips — thewonder

Sorry, but I thought that was pretty factual. I think you yourself have mentioned something to that effect -- that you wonder off topic, that your posts are long, etc. You're also not a great writer or communicator of your ideas. I'm not much better, and don't have anything else to say about you as an individual because I don't know you.

Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so.
— Xtrix
Yes, because they are stupid ideas. — Cheshire

Democracy is a stupid idea. Co-ops are a stupid idea. Interesting perspective. :smirk:

I'll take the word of those who work in co-ops over yours any day.

If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder — Cheshire

This is almost laughable. This would "break capitalism," eh? And you have the gall to accuse anyone of "stupid ideas"?

If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. — Cheshire

Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done.

You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination. — Cheshire

No, that's exactly what you're doing. Speaking of "stupid ideas."

"I'm advocating against the capitalist form of corporate governance. Plain and simple."

If you're too indoctrinated to understand what this means, then there's no point pretending to have a discussion.

I'm talking about safety nets, what does having their career ahead of then have to do with safety nets? — Isaac

Ummm....that you have a career ahead of you obviously means that you don't need a safety net for so long? For crying out loud, how difficult is it for you to understand that a 16 year old is poor, doesn't get the highest pay and often can be out of work, but that actually has been quite normal? Because usually sooner or later generations have found a job and made a career in something.

During the 16-24 period usually people study and many don't work during that. The simple fact is that without tertiary education it's hard to find great job opportunities. Is it so incredible to understand that people who have summer jobs then are part of the year unemployed?

You speculating about the motives of employers doesn't change that. — Isaac

Again the motives of employers are not speculation, but a fact.

The duration of unemployment has nothing to do with the financial cushioning to withstand it. — Isaac

I don't know what you are talking about here, because this doesn't make any sense.

This debate is simply very moronic and going nowhere.

Democracy is a stupid idea. Co-ops are a stupid idea. Interesting perspective. :smirk: — Xtrix

Democracy works as a government because it is inefficient. Inefficiency in a production setting reduces the profits available for distribution to the workers. It is a dumb way to run an operation. Which is why none are run this way.

Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done. — Xtrix

Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine.

No, that's exactly what you're doing. — Xtrix

Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie.

Inefficiency in a production setting reduces the profits available for distribution to the workers. It is a dumb way to run an operation. Which is why none are run this way. — Cheshire

Cooperatives exist all over, and are run exactly that way.

And to argue that capitalism is "efficient" is beyond laughable. Efficient for shareholders, no doubt. But not for anyone else. In fact it's destructive.

Which is why you see the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable themselves rejecting this notion in favor of "stakeholder capitalism."

Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done.
— Xtrix
Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine. — Cheshire

No, I do get it. More tired, boring capitalist ideas to solve capitalism: "free-er markets!" "More competition!" Yet again more Milton Friedman bullshit. Tired, failed, simplistic thinking. But you're welcome to your zombie ideas.

Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie. — Cheshire

Are you just an idiot? Apparently. Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? Then why repeat the lie:

They are worker-owned but not managed. — Cheshire

You liar you. How can you say they're "worker owned" -- don't you know that's an illusion!

:lol:

Everyone is welcome, and everyone can be involved. — Xtrix

Welcome, how? You've been nothing but dismissive and snide. Am I considered for membership within a cooperative that you are a part of? Probably not. It's just like the aforementioned coffee shop, or even Occupy. They wanted to be anti-capitalist, as it was in vogue then to be somehow disaffected as it is now, and experiment with direct democracy, having taken a leaf from ¡Democracia Real YA!, who never had this problem, I might add, all under the lucrative direction of Adbusters, but they didn't really care too much for anarchists, communists, socialists, etc. Sure, there were a variegated set of reasons for this, but one of which was that admitting that anti-capitalism is just simply "left-wing" and that the direct democracy that they sought to carry out does ultimate within participatory democracy, of which the two most notable historical examples of are the Paris Commune and certain localities under the Second Spanish Republic, would play into the media characterization of the movement as having been "radical", which, if it does denote that a political philosophy goes beyond liberal democracy, was just simply true. I believe that José María Arizmendiarrieta was an a-political humanist. You, I think, are a left-wing liberal who has characterized cooperatives as being a-political so as to broaden your potential support base, which is just fine, but does kind of leave us out in the process.