> If 5% of companies were coop, you'd at least expect 5% of leaders to be coop, or they control 5% of the market share. This not how hegemony works in statisti

> If 5% of companies were coop, you'd at least expect 5% of leaders to be coop, or they control 5% of the market share. This not how hegemony works in statistics. If you have 10.000 companies and 9.500 are capitalist hierarchical corporations, all else being equal, if you take the top 300 companies by profit (assuming profit is not uniformly distributed), the chances of the sample of 300 having the same distribution as the total 10.000 is very slim. Think about it this way: Take two normal curves. Align them so that they have the same mean and variance. Now shrink one of them so that it is only 5% of mass of the other. Now go to the right extreme of the unmodified curve (say 2 standard deviations where 2.3% of the unmodified samples are), do you think you’ll get the same proportion of the smaller curve or do you think it will be much smaller? > why can't coops do the same? consolidate, gain economies of scale, making all of their members better off? Now this is a more interesting question. The answer is not statistical but sociological, because statistically accumulation of wealth happens regardless of the system, and would happen also if most corporations were worker owned (I believe I even stated it above). However this question is also a bit of a distraction since the claim here is that market share is a poor metric to evaluate efficiency. And whether wealth accumulates in a primerly socialist economy like it does in a capitalist one takes nothing from that claim. A worker owned monopoly earning most of the profit can afford to be just as inefficient as a company earning it’s shareholders the pretty buck.