3 ms·

Sure, providing universal basic services is a good start. However, the bigger question is what basis is there for private ownership of the means of production.

Sure, providing universal basic services is a good start. However, the bigger question is what basis is there for private ownership of the means of production. Seems to me that a much fairer system would be to have a mix of cooperative and state ownership. The state could own all the essential industry that's required to provide the basic services such as food, healthcare, education, housing, and so on. Meanwhile, any nice to have things could be produced by cooperatively owned companies that compete on the market. Cooperative ownership would ensure that the profits are fairly distributed amongst the workers avoiding the problem with wealth accumulation. This model has been shown to work very successfully at scale already. A couple of great examples to look at are Mondragon and Huwawei. These are huge companies that employ thousands of people and have excellent track record of profitability and resilience. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/ https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/ https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/who-owns-huawei https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/who-owns-hua...

sokoloff 4y ago
Huawei is privately owned (by the workers). There’s nothing stopping anyone else from choosing that. The moment I start a company, I own 100% of it. There’s no reason that I can’t hire someone for $X and Y shares per year (provided they agree, of course), exactly as Huawei does. It is very likely that some people would prefer $X+n and 0 shares rather than $X and Y shares. (This is especially true if those shares are not publicly sellable.) Someone else might prefer $X-n and 2*Y shares per year. If that’s agreeable to the shareholders (me, in this example) and the employee, we’re free to strike that deal as well.
- yogthos 4y ago
  Except there is because you need initial capital to start a business, and when capital is handed out by rich VCs who want a stake in a business then good luck getting that capital for a cooperative. A different model could be that the central bank acts as the investor, and businesses are required to run using a cooperative model. Again, the point here is to have fair wealth distribution as opposed to having wealth accumulation. Given that the initial wealth is largely a factor of luck, the current model hardly seems fair or moral.

sokoloff 4y ago

Huawei is privately owned (by the workers). There’s nothing stopping anyone else from choosing that. The moment I start a company, I own 100% of it. There’s no reason that I can’t hire someone for $X and Y shares per year (provided they agree, of course), exactly as Huawei does. It is very likely that some people would prefer $X+n and 0 shares rather than $X and Y shares. (This is especially true if those shares are not publicly sellable.) Someone else might prefer $X-n and 2*Y shares per year. If that’s agreeable to the shareholders (me, in this example) and the employee, we’re free to strike that deal as well.

yogthos 4y ago
Except there is because you need initial capital to start a business, and when capital is handed out by rich VCs who want a stake in a business then good luck getting that capital for a cooperative. A different model could be that the central bank acts as the investor, and businesses are required to run using a cooperative model. Again, the point here is to have fair wealth distribution as opposed to having wealth accumulation. Given that the initial wealth is largely a factor of luck, the current model hardly seems fair or moral.