4 ms·

Any particular reason you think that?

wahern 9y ago
Because private, investor-owned corporations can also be * Anti-meritocratic * Abused as vehicles for tax avoidance * Harm competition (indeed, avoiding, minimizing, or killing competition arguably encompasses the majority of sales and business strategies) * Pay low wages, especially relative to management, and particularly relative to upper management. * Rely heavily on political connections, sometimes to the point of classic quid pro quo corruption. My point was merely that all of those characterizations not only could be made of private corporations, in some economic markets private industry can be even more abusive than other forms of organization. You can't compare actual coops to the imaginary, Platonic ideal of free market capitalist enterprise. You have to compare it to what capitalist enterprise would actually look like in that region if it displaced the coops. The dynamics that breed corruption won't disappear. A more heavily capitalist, investor-owned system could result in any number of possible outcomes, some worse and some better, and it's not at all obvious which would be more likely. The first thought that entered my mind when I read his criticism was that maybe he should ask migrant Mexican farmworkers in California if they'd like to swap places with the Italian coop members. I suspect that California agriculture produces more output at a lower price than in the Emilia-Romagna region, but recent political trends the world over should make it clear that maximizing short-term economic efficiency isn't politically viable, regardless of whether it objectively maximizes overall social wealth. And regardless of whether it maximizes long-term wealth equality--we'll never see those fruits if the social and political fabric disintegrate.
- hueving 9y ago
  All of those things apply to coops. Coops reward politically inclined members who can rally crowds. They are not meritocracies at all. Coops compete with others in the same way any other corporation would. In fact, employees who are members are more motivated to play dirty (a.k.a. cheat) than regular employees in a corporation. Coops are just as subject to corruption. Just look at the coop connections with the mafia in Italy.

Because private, investor-owned corporations can also be * Anti-meritocratic * Abused as vehicles for tax avoidance * Harm competition (indeed, avoiding, minimizing, or killing competition arguably encompasses the majority of sales and business strategies) * Pay low wages, especially relative to management, and particularly relative to upper management. * Rely heavily on political connections, sometimes to the point of classic quid pro quo corruption. My point was merely that all of those characterizations not only could be made of private corporations, in some economic markets private industry can be even more abusive than other forms of organization. You can't compare actual coops to the imaginary, Platonic ideal of free market capitalist enterprise. You have to compare it to what capitalist enterprise would actually look like in that region if it displaced the coops. The dynamics that breed corruption won't disappear. A more heavily capitalist, investor-owned system could result in any number of possible outcomes, some worse and some better, and it's not at all obvious which would be more likely. The first thought that entered my mind when I read his criticism was that maybe he should ask migrant Mexican farmworkers in California if they'd like to swap places with the Italian coop members. I suspect that California agriculture produces more output at a lower price than in the Emilia-Romagna region, but recent political trends the world over should make it clear that maximizing short-term economic efficiency isn't politically viable, regardless of whether it objectively maximizes overall social wealth. And regardless of whether it maximizes long-term wealth equality--we'll never see those fruits if the social and political fabric disintegrate.

hueving 9y ago
All of those things apply to coops. Coops reward politically inclined members who can rally crowds. They are not meritocracies at all. Coops compete with others in the same way any other corporation would. In fact, employees who are members are more motivated to play dirty (a.k.a. cheat) than regular employees in a corporation. Coops are just as subject to corruption. Just look at the coop connections with the mafia in Italy.