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.

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.

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.

By what strange alchemy does this happen? — hypericin

By the workings of NOS’s brain.

Why are you laughing? That's what happened. — frank

:lol:

Lurched out of stagnation …

I don’t conform to anyone’s decision unless I agree with it. — NOS4A2

How brave. Good for you.

So you’ve never worked in a company or held a job— or you’ve agreed with all the decisions they make. If you’re somewhere in between, as most people are, then you’ve certainly conformed to other’s decisions. You also do so now, in terms of political decisions.

But hold your delusions all you want.

Worker ownership and control = less autonomy, less freedom for workers. Got it. Straight from the inverted reality you inhabit.

“Your conditions are decided by others.” Yes, the fellow workers— democratically and with your input. As opposed to the same thing in a capitalist company, where the boards of directors make those decisions without any input at all from workers. But because you’re free to leave and get another job, the latter is more freedom? News flash: you can leave a co-op too.

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

No.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Neoliberals stepped in, broke the labor unions, created incentives for investment and the economy lurched forward out of stagnation — frank

:rofl:

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:

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.

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.

Personally I wouldn’t want to work at a cooperative because I would have to conform to the decisions of the majority, whether I agreed with them or not. That, to me, isn’t “by the people, for the people”, but “by the majority, for the majority”. — NOS4A2

Yes, we know you're not in favor of democracy. You've made that clear many times. You prefer rule of the minority, the elites, over the majority. That's what we have in corporations, that's (almost) what we have in government (Republicans being a good example).

You prefer to conform to the decisions of a handful of people at the top, whether you agree with them or not. But that's because you're the Forum idiot, as demonstrated over and over again. (Forgive me for the frank accuracy.)

But I’m sure it would be a nice place to work for the conformist. — NOS4A2

No, just for those who believe in democracy over plutocracy, and prefer to have a say in where they work rather than take orders from corporate masters. But like I said -- each his own. We all know you prefer licking the ass of your masters, you "non-conformist" you. Be happy with that.

The American idea of democracy, as far as I understand it, is about obtaining a position of power through the majority of votes. This is how a capitalist corporation can be democratic. — baker

Right, exactly. Easy.

It's simply moving democracy into the workplace.

Much like democracy in the political sphere, it does not mean workers vote on every little decision, or that someone who cleans the office has to share duties with someone in accounting. It also doesn't mean there are no such things as managers, supervisors, etc. It simply is cutting out what's not necessary: outside owners. There can still be investors, stocks can still be issued, etc., but the people making the decisions (the board of directors) and the people managing daily operations (CEO, presidents) are voted in by the workers, not by shareholders.

Industrial democracy, where workers make the decisions about how the workplace will be operated and towards which end, is an alternative to capitalism. Given modern communications and computational facilities, I see no problem in the workers of many different industries planning and coordinating with other workers in other industries.

Of course this would not be simple. It isn't simple now, but it gets done every day, more less, better and worse. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. There's many misunderstandings about this, however. Given years of indoctrination, even common sense notions become hard to see and understand. But I think discussing concrete examples can really help overcome the false consciousness that has its grip on most working and middle class people -- which prevents them from voting in this direction, joining unions, or advocating/acting for change in the workplace.

I can't wrap my head around the fact that democracy is considered the best form of government — TheMadFool

Just be happy with your plutocracy, then, and go back to sleep.

We have "free around" hospitals but our health outcomes are not better than yours honestly...
Why all the rich Spaniards go to the USA to treat their serious sicknesses as cancer? Most of them end up in Los Ángeles or Dallas. Think about it...
Everything free is not the solution. — javi2541997

The US spends more on healthcare than any country on planet earth and has some of the worst outcomes. That's just factual.

Why do some rich Spaniards go to the USA? For the same reason rich people all over the world send their kids to Harvard and Yale. The USA has some of the best schools and doctors in the world -- if you can afford it. Likewise, Beverly Hills is pretty nice -- if you can afford it. So what?

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019

"Overall, while both systems produce similar results in terms of population health and service quality, there are major differences in health care cost and wait time satisfaction. This suggests that while both systems perform their functions adequately, there is still room for improvement on the part of the United States in providing higher quality health care at a more affordable cost."

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/847/

Sometimes, public and universal wealthcare can be an oasis. It is not as good as it seems. It is true that is basic right that everyone deserves. But, at the end of the day the vaccines were developed by countries which also reinforce the private sector as UK and USA. What Spain has made about the pursuing of vaccines despite the public wealthcare system? Nothing... So the public expenditure is not good at all. — javi2541997

The United States is also a much wealthier nation. Most of the technology that developed did not come out of the private sector, but the public sector. Much like computers, the internet, etc., came out of state-funded research and were later taken over and privatized by companies, large pharmaceutical companies are also in this group. They also are given massive amounts of money from the government in the form of subsidies and incentives.

Lots of nations have healthcare as a basic right. So does Germany. So does Australia. So does the UK. So does Canada, Japan, etc. I wouldn't say that has much to do with innovation or technology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

About the famous corporation: Basque Country signed a very important deal with the spanish government in 2002 where they let them have their own “taxation system”. Thanks to this, they develop an own work and economic plan, completely apart from Spain.
I am not saying with this Mondragón is a fake issue. I believe a lot in Basque people, they are heavy and responsible workers. But... we have to admit they have some advantages that other regions don’t. — javi2541997

Sure, sure. All very true and interesting. I use them only to demonstrate what's possible. They have their advantages, flaws, and their own (perhaps very convenient) conditions.

But it happens in the states as well. Ocean Spray is a good example. Very successful. Also a co-op. They contract in distribution with Nestle, I think, but still...

Sometimes I feel is not worthy at all. It is true that here any hospital will leave you in the street for not having an insurance but at the same time there are many folks who are using the healthcare system everyday without working. — javi2541997

You're from Spain?

True, you get free healthcare -- and some people who don't work also get it. But isn't that how it should be, as a basic right?

Remember, too, that we don't turn people away in the US. So people who don't work and are without insurance, and can't pay a dime, still get treatment. The taxpayer has to make up that price anyway. This is often overlooked. Better to just make it free all around, and so you have far less debt, far better health outcomes, and far less expensive treatments.

You make it sound attractive, but democracies are messy and making and moving on decisions can be ordeals. Look at the problems with the infrastructure bills. But I'm naive on the subject. — jgill

Quite right: they are messy. There are problems, there are setbacks, there are dead ends, mistakes, wrong turns, infighting, even corruption. Some enterprises fail, some succeed. Etc.

But we wouldn't argue that because democracy in the United States is messy, that we shouldn't have it. It strive instead to make it better. Likewise, let's start with the same basic principle of democracy -- and apply it to the CORPORATION (which, after all, wouldn't even exist without gifts from the state, legal and otherwise). I think it would transform our society, and for the better.

I'm all for them and all, but I don't think that workers determine their pay grades and ratios all that often, for instance. I could be wrong, though. I don't know too much about them. — thewonder

Who does, then? If the workers are their board of directors, they can decide these things -- just as a board of directors in a capitalist corporation decides how much to compensate a CEO.

The OP refers to a particular manifestation of the general project of economic democracy, or stakeholder socioeconomics as an alternative to shareholder capitalism (e.g. Mondragon Corporation or any network or federation of viable cooperatives). — 180 Proof

Exactly right. I think both the accurate articulation of the problems of society (income inrequality especially, but also healthcare, education and student debt, general debt, stagnant real wages, environmental degradation, externalities, worker layoffs, etc), a keen understanding of how a corporation really works, and real world examples (like Mondragon) that embody the more abstract solutions -- these three things together can lead us forward perhaps to economic democracy. To add to this: labor unions.

This is only on the economic front. On the political front, which is equally important (if not more so), it likewise requires education, alternatives, examples of how to organize and what tactics work, etc.

Maybe a common feature of both is the simple fact that people need to wake up. I've referred to this in my Global Awakening thread, and this in part is what I meant. It means overcoming dogma and propaganda, and coming together with others for collective action.

Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does. — Outlander

Lack of faith in what?

Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this. — Outlander

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."