3 ms·

> Worker cooperatives exist and are perfectly functional and successful Ha sure. Ok, which brand of socialism do you support and why? Socialism is a sad joke,

> Worker cooperatives exist and are perfectly functional and successful Ha sure. Ok, which brand of socialism do you support and why? Socialism is a sad joke, socialists group under a banner that does not even exist in reality. Socialism: social control of the means of production What does that even mean in practice? Nobody knows. This is why socialists and communists always end up killing each other. // // // edit: because I'm getting rate limited because socialists like to flag posts they disagree with, my response to the post below: > Yes, worker cooperatives exist and are successful. Mondragon[1] is probably the biggest and most well known Small private corporations that are worker run under capitalism is a very unique definition of socialism. Socialism under the silly wikipedia definition you provided mandates social ownership of the means of production. For something to be considered socialist, property rights need to be abolished and "control" needs to be redistributed in some manner. Of course "control" is in quotes because under socialism nobody owns anything, "society" owns it. Workers don't really have control either because they can't choose to sell their control, that would obviously just be capitalism with extra steps. Nobody ever actually explains the details of any of this. The communist manifesto gets close because Marx clearly understood that to steal from people you need to kill them but he never actually prescribes the details of running the damn thing after killing all the property owners. > In other words, there are any number of ways social control can be constructed, and has been constructed. Some more successful than others In other words you did not contradict anything I said. > Social control through the state of large segments of the economy has been perfectly successful both in the US and in Europe. Perfectly successful under what definition? Neither the US or Europe have complete social control of the means of production and the little control they do exert is widely known to be extremely wasteful and inefficient. > Driven on a road? Congrats, you've benefited from social control of infrastructure The roads are terrible and filled with pot holes in San Francisco. The sidewalks are covered in shit. The storm drains did not function when a small storm passed the city. Please don't tell me they need more money to fix those problems.

dbingham 4y ago
Ignorance and self satisfaction, always a great combination those. I debated whether to even respond, but decided I would for those reading along. > Ha sure. Yes, worker cooperatives exist and are successful. Mondragon[1] is probably the biggest and most well known. It's effectively the GE of worker cooperatives. It's based in Spain, functions across numerous verticals and has 80,000 worker owners and total annual revenue around 12 billion euros. One you might be more familiar with is Equal Exchange[2] - yes, the tea, coffee, and chocolate company. They have 126 employees, annual revenue of around $70 million, and national distribution. Those are just two examples, there are hundreds more. You can scoff all you want, but these companies exist and are successful. They show that companies owned and governed by their employees can operate perfectly efficiently and compete in the marketplace. > Ok, which brand of socialism do you support and why? It's interesting to note that nowhere in my comment did I imply support for socialism. I merely mentioned its existence as a system, in the context of a conversation about boiling down the world of economic systems to a spectrum. Interesting that the parent commenter found mere mention of its existence triggering. > Socialism: social control of the means of production > What does that even mean in practice? Nobody knows. This is why socialists and communists always end up killing each other. From wikipedia[3]: > Socialism is a left-wing[1] economic philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic systems characterized by the dominance of social ownership[2] of the means of production[3][4] as opposed to private ownership.[5][6][4] As a term, it describes the economic, political and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[7] Social ownership can be state/public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.[8][9] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[10] social ownership is the one common element. In other words, there are any number of ways social control can be constructed, and has been constructed. Some more successful than others. And no, socialists don't always end up killing each other. Social control through the state of large segments of the economy has been perfectly successful both in the US and in Europe. Driven on a road? Congrats, you've benefited from social control of infrastructure. Drunk water from your tap? If you're in the US, the water you drink from your tap and the sewer that carries away your waste is almost certainly owned by a municipal utility - again social control. In most of Europe, entire health care systems are run by the state through social control. In other words, state socialism - both municipal and national - has been shown to be perfectly successful when used in the sectors of the economy it's best fit for and on the scale most fitting. As I pointed out above, social control of individual enterprises (worker cooperatives) has also been shown to be perfectly effective. By all means, engage in the debate about what economic systems are the most effective and the least harmful. But if you're going to do it, do your homework first and leave the self satisfaction behind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Exchange [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

dbingham 4y ago

Ignorance and self satisfaction, always a great combination those. I debated whether to even respond, but decided I would for those reading along. > Ha sure. Yes, worker cooperatives exist and are successful. Mondragon[1] is probably the biggest and most well known. It's effectively the GE of worker cooperatives. It's based in Spain, functions across numerous verticals and has 80,000 worker owners and total annual revenue around 12 billion euros. One you might be more familiar with is Equal Exchange[2] - yes, the tea, coffee, and chocolate company. They have 126 employees, annual revenue of around $70 million, and national distribution. Those are just two examples, there are hundreds more. You can scoff all you want, but these companies exist and are successful. They show that companies owned and governed by their employees can operate perfectly efficiently and compete in the marketplace. > Ok, which brand of socialism do you support and why? It's interesting to note that nowhere in my comment did I imply support for socialism. I merely mentioned its existence as a system, in the context of a conversation about boiling down the world of economic systems to a spectrum. Interesting that the parent commenter found mere mention of its existence triggering. > Socialism: social control of the means of production > What does that even mean in practice? Nobody knows. This is why socialists and communists always end up killing each other. From wikipedia[3]: > Socialism is a left-wing[1] economic philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic systems characterized by the dominance of social ownership[2] of the means of production[3][4] as opposed to private ownership.[5][6][4] As a term, it describes the economic, political and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[7] Social ownership can be state/public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.[8][9] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[10] social ownership is the one common element. In other words, there are any number of ways social control can be constructed, and has been constructed. Some more successful than others. And no, socialists don't always end up killing each other. Social control through the state of large segments of the economy has been perfectly successful both in the US and in Europe. Driven on a road? Congrats, you've benefited from social control of infrastructure. Drunk water from your tap? If you're in the US, the water you drink from your tap and the sewer that carries away your waste is almost certainly owned by a municipal utility - again social control. In most of Europe, entire health care systems are run by the state through social control. In other words, state socialism - both municipal and national - has been shown to be perfectly successful when used in the sectors of the economy it's best fit for and on the scale most fitting. As I pointed out above, social control of individual enterprises (worker cooperatives) has also been shown to be perfectly effective. By all means, engage in the debate about what economic systems are the most effective and the least harmful. But if you're going to do it, do your homework first and leave the self satisfaction behind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Exchange [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism