There are some considerations to ponder here, namely that you are bound to only have a few people who truly understand the democratic process — thewonder

Why? What do you mean by "you are bound to only have a few people who truly understand the democratic process"???

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. — thewonder

At least we agree on this.

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. — thewonder

Good to be honest here. Because many times things that seem OK on paper, when you think of them theoretically, miss the crucial element of the actual people and how they come along with each other. That naturally depends on a variety of things as people can be very different and just one individual in a group can either make it work or make it to brake up.

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? — thewonder

Sure. But as in my country there are large and well performing cooperatives, I'm of the view that in the end the normal day-to-day functions of a cooperative aren't so different from a corporation. Naturally the whole discourse and activity around the company stock doesn't exist, yet they look quite the same.

Why? What do you mean by "you are bound to only have a few people who truly understand the democratic process"??? — ssu

In so far that you have a too complex of a democratic process, only a few people will understand how it works.

Good to be honest here. Because many times things that seem OK on paper, when you think of them theoretically, miss the crucial element of the actual people and how they come along with each other. That naturally depends on a variety of things as people can be very different and just one individual in a group can either make it work or make it to brake up — ssu

That's fair enough, but I think that the gradualist elements that I have incorporated do kind of safeguard against potential failures, at least, that's what they're intended to do.

Sure. But as in my country there are large and well performing cooperatives, I'm of the view that in the end the normal day-to-day functions of a cooperative aren't so different from a corporation. Naturally the whole discourse and activity around the company stock doesn't exist, yet they look quite the same. — ssu

Working in a cooperative does seem very much preferable to me than working elsewhere. Alas, though, and I am sure that I have some rather mythic notions in this regard, I don't live in a Nordic country, and, so, will have to figure something else out.

Am I considered for membership within a cooperative that you are a part of? Probably not. — thewonder

? It's not like it's a club, for God's sakes. We're talking about a form of organizing a business.

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. — thewonder

I have not once characterized cooperatives as a-political. I'm sure the workers within a cooperative have plenty of ideas about politics. Same with any fortune 500 corporation, for that matter. I'm simply talking about how the corporation is structured. Do you know anything about that or not? Are you capable of answering the above questions, or not? If you'd rather insist on diverting the discussion into something that interests you, or that you think you're knowledgable about, fine. But then don't whine when people ignore you.

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. — Xtrix

And you really think that is the silver bullet?

There would also be many worker council meetings (like staff meetings) where everyone voices their opinions, etc. — Xtrix

At least here there are. I think many of these issues seem to be basic issues that ought to be covered by labor laws. Starting from the fact that workers are heard about things concerning their jobs and salary as one entity too.

It's about giving everyone a vote for leadership positions and having workers elect the board of directors rather than investors.
— Xtrix
And you really think that is the silver bullet? — ssu

Is this a serious question?

No, of course it's not a silver bullet. But it's an important place to start. Assuming we value democracy and the empowerment of working people.

At least here there are. I think many of these issues seem to be basic issues that ought to be covered by labor laws. Starting from the fact that workers are heard about things concerning their jobs and salary as one entity too. — ssu

That would be great too, of course. Right now there's none of that -- in a capitalist-run corporation. You have no say, no input, no vote. You can complain to your manager if you want to, but good luck with that. You have no access to corporate boardrooms, no representation on the board, no vote for the board, and so absolutely no say in the major decisions of the company in which you work and produce profits for.

In so far that you have a too complex of a democratic process, only a few people will understand how it works. — thewonder

Democracy to work sets actually high standards to the people.

Working in a cooperative does seem very much preferable to me than working elsewhere. Alas, though, and I am sure that I have some rather mythic notions in this regard, I don't live in a Nordic country, and, so, will have to figure something else out. — thewonder

Well, what is so wrong with a having a company where the workers own the shares of the company? In the end if you want, you can sell your shares. I think the major criticism about current corporations is that ownership has been institutionalized in such a way that

I think here in the discussion it should be worth mentioning that in economic theory, the theory of a business or a company, is basically something totally similar to a service you buy. The contract with the person is just far more than one single transaction. And that's basically it. The alternative for any company, be it a corporation or a cooperative, is that you simply buy the service, the work, from individuals and not have any company. Because a company is nothing else but an complex contract.

Right now there's none of that -- in a capitalist-run corporation. You have no say, no input, no vote. You can complain to your manager if you want to, but good luck with that. You have no access to corporate boardrooms, no representation on the board, no vote for the board, and so absolutely no say in the major decisions of the company in which you work and produce profits for. — Xtrix

You know, Xtrix, I'm not a great fan of labour unions. I don't even belong to one (which was looked with much resentment in one academic workplace).

Yet the simple fact is that some labor presentation IS CRUCIAL. Just as labor laws are essential for the whole system to work.

I always take the example of the active military officers in the Finnish Army. Nearly all of them (well over 90%) belong to a trade union. And they truly, really truly, ARE NOT LEFTISTS. There was a huge outcry in the 1960's when an openly social democrat guy tried to get into career officer course. He wasn't let in (as military officers cannot be party members, only when they retire). The Soviet Union (and it's Finnish Communists) tried to infiltrate the Finnish Army after 1919 onward. Never had any luck, even if the Russian intelligence services are awesome otherwise. Hence being part of a labor union isn't a left / right issue. Even some libertarians understand that. Unfortunately this a major problem in the US.

Hence the labor union issue, or basically the labor movement, isn't a leftist issue. It's simply a rational issue.

Without any collective bargaining the employer and the owner can treat employees as pig shit. Not that all do that, but some surely will if they are given the opportunity.

I don't think that I quite believe that stock buybacks are where most of a company's profits go, but, sure, the board directors more or less control any given corporation. I don't think that too many people deny that.

It's not like it's a club, for God's sakes. — Xtrix

Metaphorically speaking, what is a set of references, job experiences, and experiences within higher education other than a set of status symbols? Even not so metaphorically speaking, I could still beg the same question.

I have not once characterized cooperatives as a-political. I'm sure the workers within a cooperative have plenty of ideas about politics. — Xtrix

The point that I am raising about anarchism and cooperatives is that, in so far that a cooperative is aware that a prospective employee is an anarchist, they are probably less likely to hire them, despite, that, in a way, the whole thing is kind of an anarchistesque idea. There are reasons for this, though, some of which are better than others and some of which aren't really all that justified at all.

If you'd rather insist on diverting the discussion into something that interests you, or that you think you're knowledgable about, fine. But then don't whine when people ignore you. — Xtrix

I really did just respond to the thread from my perspective. I took a certain degree of liberty of the aforementioned "perspective", which I will even apologize for, but that is all that really happened. If you think about it, when else will I have the opportunity to talk about libcom's misguided near rejection of participatory economics? There's something to said for listening to people, I guess, but a missed opportunity is just that.

Democracy to work sets actually high standards to the people. — ssu

There's a difference, though, between adequate standards and absurd ones. I generally invoke The New York Times for what I think the expected reading level ought to be for anything that needs to be commonly understood. If something requires a postgraduate education to understand, particularly when it is something that is expected to be understood by most people or when it is something that most people ought to figure out, then, it has not been expressed in a clear and concise enough manner.

Well, what is so wrong with a having a company where the workers own the shares of the company? In the end if you want, you can sell your shares. — ssu

That doesn't seem to pose too much of a problem to me. I don't know, though. I don't live there.

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! — Xtrix

You make less sense the more obnoxious you become. The claim above doesn't even make sense. Even in your normal naive way. Being worker owned is not the same as worker managed. You can tell because we use to different words to indicate the difference. Seriously though, I'm seeing how people become politically revolted and drift right. If you could refrain from speaking in public the rest of us would really appreciate it.

Lack of faith in what? — Xtrix

In your own words, beliefs, and benefits it has in life it would seem. See, I happen to see your views as wrong, and so I have no disdain or even agitation in being insulted by someone I view as 'wrong' for as it is written, if these [your] works are wrong they will fail. Instead I feel neither pity nor superiority but concern to perhaps benefit you. Yet you seem to have no desire to benefit anyone else but yourself and your own belief. That's why I take offense. And sure, I could be wrong entirely. That should warrant compassion and guidance not wrath and insult. But again, you just don't seem to want that on those who need it, which is where my agitation comes from.

There's nothing to decide. There was a simple question with a simple answer. The answer was: the board of directors. Your answer, "the consumers," was simply wrong. Sorry that this upset you -- but grow up and get thicker skin. I'm not here to baby people.

2+2 = ?

Your answer: 3.

Real answer: 4.

"Well, I guess we'll just have to leave it to the readers to decide." — Xtrix

So why not have just said the "simple answer" from the get go instead of engaging in this pseudo-intellectual hullabaloo of a discussion? You have an answer to a question, and it cannot be proven wrong for you know all as far as this specific topic. Wonderful. Famous last words, but whatever keeps you going, you know? See, this is propaganda, not a debate. I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right, just simply by all definitions this is not a debate but an assertion, which is simply not what this site is for. You are here to baby people actually, because if you gave your audience any real benefit of the doubt let alone respect you would have been straightforward with your belief - I'm sorry "the ultimate truth" - from the get go, yet you were not. So at best you view the readers who don't agree with your beliefs as lost sheep or at worst .. to quote you "thin-skinned babies" who post "stupid" comments. And that's great, this is an open discussion forum. Just don't expect everyone to believe what you believe or think your understanding is absolute or relevant to anyone but yourself.

Political philosophy. — Xtrix

Thanks. But isn't "corporation" a business term (large company)? Wouldn't the term "organization" fit better? Anyway, whatever you call it, I don't think that politics have anything to do with corporate administration and management. They are never part of the daily agenda.

On the other hand, "Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government" (Wikipedia)

I don't think that I quite believe that stock buybacks are where most of a company's profits go — thewonder

It's a huge part where the profits do go. And that is a problem, because they aren't invested. More than a half trillion dollars annually in recent years. just by the S&P 500 companies.

All can disappear in a poof in a sharp rapid market crash.

If something requires a postgraduate education to understand, particularly when it is something that is expected to be understood by most people or when it is something that most people ought to figure out, then, it has not been expressed in a clear and concise enough manner. — thewonder

Postgrad education means doing a doctoral thesis, basically coming up with totally new information.

Yet the more direct the democracy is, the more active and informed the citizen has to be. And basically the most important role of democracy is to give a safety valve and gives credible authority for the system. If the administration makes lousy mistakes, it's replaced in elections. Also it political leaders give the needed authority. I didn't vote for the leftists and social democrats or the greens, but I'm OK with them being in power. They won the election and could form an administration. So let the young women rule.

That doesn't seem to pose too much of a problem to me. I don't know, though. I don't live there. — thewonder

I guess that where you live you do have companies where the shares of the company are owned by those who work in the company. Family owned companies, even those with stock, do exist.

Many of the problems, or what people consider to be problems, are not necessarily because of companies being corporations, but many institutional deficiencies like weak judicial supervision, corruption, non-existent labour protection and weak labor unions.

I was basically suggesting that, if an organizations democratic process is like a Rube Goldberg device, then, you will necessarily have the problem of that there will only be a few people who understands how it works. It was just to suggest dynamic and adaptability without over-complexity.

There even are leftists, social democrats, and greens. Even just having a multi-party system in the United States would make me feel that much more inclined to be somehow engaged with the political system here. Granted, the so-called "partisan deadlock" does, in ways, prevent us from having to entertain tacit Neo-Fascists or only so former Marxist-Leninists. Still, I think that the multi-party system does allow for a greater respect for pluralism and is, quite obviously, much more open.

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

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. — Cheshire

So I’m selling slavery under the coercive lie that workers “own the place.” Workers ownership is a lie and hallucination. According to you.

Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? — Xtrix

To which the reply is:

Being worker owned is not the same as worker managed. — Cheshire

Lol. The fact that this statement is wrapped in attempts at insulting my intelligence is hilarious.

See if you can follow in simple terms:

1) Mondragon is owned by its workers. As you mention.

2) You claim it’s a hallucination and lie that workers own anything.

3) I point out that Mondragon is owned by workers— and is not a lie, but a fact (see 1).

4) You call me naïve and state that Mondragon is not worker managed.

I try not to be mean, or an intellectual bully, but this is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. Being angry at me being an asshole doesn’t change when I also happen to be right. In this case, it’s obvious. Mondragon is owned by workers. That’s not a lie. Period. Whatever else you meant by that, who knows. But they’re owned by their workers, which is not a lie. Get it? Or do you want to continue resorting to a strange irrationality?

Let’s see if people on the internet are still capable of acknowledging reality, even when angry…

Thanks. But isn't "corporation" a business term (large company)? Wouldn't the term "organization" fit better? — Alkis Piskas

No. Because I’m talking about the structure of corporations, which is a specific type of institution (or organization).

Anyway, whatever you call it, I don't think that politics have anything to do with corporate administration and management. — Alkis Piskas

Corporate governance is connected to political thinking as well.

On the other hand, "Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government" (Wikipedia) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, and this is corporate governance. But it we reserve politics solely for state government, which is typical, then call this economic philosophy instead— or whatever you like. It doesn’t matter much to me. My goal is to think a little deeper about corporations. That means understanding their structure.

OK

Yet the simple fact is that some labor presentation IS CRUCIAL. Just as labor laws are essential for the whole system to work. — ssu

Agreed. Bringing democracy at work, and having the workers own and run the companies themselves, is even more crucial. If we want to improve social conditions, and such massive inequality, improve the environment, stop terrible trade deals, etc., then this strikes at the heart of the matter.

Labor unions and better legislation is also very important indeed.

Hence the labor union issue, or basically the labor movement, isn't a leftist issue. It's simply a rational issue.

Without any collective bargaining the employer and the owner can treat employees as pig shit. Not that all do that, but some surely will if they are given the opportunity. — ssu

Glad we agree.

And sure, I could be wrong entirely. That should warrant compassion and guidance not wrath and insult. But again, you just don't seem to want that on those who need it, which is where my agitation comes from. — Outlander

Fine. The question still stands: lack of faith in what? It wasn’t rhetorical.

Y

So why not have just said the "simple answer" from the get go instead of engaging in this pseudo-intellectual hullabaloo of a discussion? — Outlander

Because it’s more fun seeing where people are in their understanding and why. I didn’t insult you for giving a wrong answer.

Plus I prefer not giving lectures. Questions help people think through the topic themselves first. If it turns out they’re mistaken - as you were - that’s not a fault. Attitude is.

I try not to be mean, or an intellectual bully, but this is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. Being angry at me being an asshole doesn’t change when I also happen to be right. — Xtrix

In that case your presentation may be unrepairable.

In this case, it’s obvious. Mondragon is owned by workers. That’s not a lie. Period. Whatever else you meant by that, who knows. — Xtrix

Oh, so it is obvious that I already know it is technically worker owned? Good, I mentioned that 4 or 5 times.

2) You claim it’s a hallucination and lie that workers own anything. — Xtrix

Well, no I don't. I imply that this ownership is of a limited benefit. The "whatever else you meant" is an indication you are well aware of this fact.

Let’s see if people on the internet are still capable of acknowledging reality, even when angry… — Xtrix

I was a little irritated when I thought the position you held actually represented what you think. After reading your other posts and looking at the justifications you use; it's more than obvious you have a right wing basis. Honestly, completely honestly, there is no way to reconcile your position with any modern liberal position. And all of the tactics for argumentation you are using come out of a right wing propaganda playbook. It's satisfying to see the right have to resort to faking a position in order to draw support.

I imply that this ownership is of a limited benefit. — Cheshire

Then say it’s a lie that it matters if workers own the company or not. To claim I’m lying about the FACT that they own the company is wrong — and I have no idea about your implications, because I’m not a mind reader and you’ve said nothing about why it doesn’t matter or is of “limited benefit.” A claim I probably won’t agree with, but if you have evidence I’ll happily take a look.

more than obvious you have a right wing basis. — Cheshire

Worker ownership is right wing? In what world? Maybe the 19th century, I guess. Who knows.

If I buy 1 share of Microsoft, do I own Microsoft?

If I buy 1 share of Microsoft, do I own Microsoft? — Cheshire

No.

Why not?

Worker ownership is right wing? In what world? Maybe the 19th century, I guess. Who knows. — Xtrix

Your presentation is of a left wing position as it's misunderstood by a right wing propogandist.

Your presentation is of a left wing position as it's misunderstood by a right wing propogandist. — Cheshire

It’s fun to watch you try to fit what I say into your rather limited categories. Keep trying.

Why not? — Cheshire

Because shares have nothing to do with ownership.

Agreed. Bringing democracy at work, and having the workers own and run the companies themselves, is even more crucial. If we want to improve social conditions, and such massive inequality, improve the environment, stop terrible trade deals, etc., then this strikes at the heart of the matter. — Xtrix

All workers joining in the overall running of the company has it simple limits, as has been said here. An organization with over 10 000 workers has to go for some kind of representative system. And much of the problems or the deficiencies can be avoided by multiple ways. These issues are very complex.

And let's not forget that there are for example public companies, which are founded not to enrich the founder or the workers themselves, but the greater community. Interesting example is how here and in Sweden the selling of alcohol is done by a government monopoly, which has long history as also a tool of social policy.

I simply think that there's isn't a one solution to an complex issue here. Economic democracy and to take into account stakeholders can be done in very many ways. And it's usually a combination of functioning institutions, but also a competitive and efficient economy is needed too. Why? Because for a healthy state and public sector you do need a healthy economy too, which creates a major part of that prosperity.

In my personal view ideologues that are fixated nearly religiously in their ideology, be it whatever, left or right, have a major problem of viewing a complex environment from various other viewpoints. It's like putting on distinct color glasses and see the surroundings in a biased way. Problems arise because their ideology hasn't been implemented. And other ideologies don't have for these people have any point to make as they are simply wrong.

It’s fun to watch you try to fit what I say into your rather limited categories. Keep trying. — Xtrix

It's the only rational explanation outside of sophomoric rebellion against some one that holds a misunderstanding of a left wing position.

Because shares have nothing to do with ownership. — Xtrix

You have no idea how companies are owned or sold.

It's the only rational explanation outside of sophomoric rebellion against some one that holds a misunderstanding of a left wing position. — Cheshire

:yawn:

Because shares have nothing to do with ownership.
— Xtrix
You have no idea how companies are owned or sold. — Cheshire

:lol:

Shareholders are not the owners of a corporation, nor do they sell the corporation. If you want me to explain it to you, I will. If you want to posture, that’s your business.

This is why this thread is relevant.

Only right wingers reply with a laughing faces as an "own the libs" attempt to inject frustration. It's your giveaway.

Shareholders are not the owners of a corporation, nor do they sell the corporation. If you want me to explain it to you, I will. If you want to posture, that’s your business. — Xtrix

I'll let my auditing prof. know; it's really gonna shake up the industry.

I'll let my auditing prof. know; it's really gonna shake up the industry. — Cheshire

It should. If your professor believes this, it’s not uncommon. It’s also completely wrong.

Shareholders are owners of shares, which are contracts with the corporation. Corporations own themselves, as legal persons. Again, I’ll go in deeper on this. I’m hoping someone else asks though— clearly you’re too interested in convincing yourself you know everything.