4 ms·

Bob turned the business over to the workers. It is worker owned. Isn’t this what Marx was talking about, aka a Soviet? Or am I wildly misunderstanding economic

Bob turned the business over to the workers. It is worker owned. Isn’t this what Marx was talking about, aka a Soviet? Or am I wildly misunderstanding economic philosophy. I’m not trolling HN here, but I just have two trump loving parents who adore Bobs decision to make it worker owned and I’d like to gotcha them next thanksgiving ;) Here's their statement on being employee owned for the mute downvoters: https://www.bobsredmill.com/employee-owned https://www.bobsredmill.com/employee-owned

LastMuel 3y ago
I don't think employee owned, by definition, means equally shared and profits equally distributed. Which may be the root of the confusion.
- dhc02 3y ago
  The way most ESOP plans work is more like this: 1. Owner[s] sell their stock to the company (note the company needs to be fairly successful to have the cash to buy the shares. Sometimes it's bought all at once, but often on some sort of multi-year payment plan. Bob's Red Mill took approx. 10 years to buy out Bob and his partners.) 2. The company puts the stock into a trust held for the benefit of employees. 3. A portion of shares may be immediately distributed to employees based on key status, years of service, etc. 4. The shares are used as part of benefit packages. It's sort of like a 401k that the employees don't actually have to pay anything to participate in. The longer you're there, and the more important your role (generally), the more you end up owning, and it's generally treated like employer 401k matches in terms of income tax. Usually after you reach a certain threshold, you're allowed to sell your shares to others or back to the company in order to diversify.
richardgreeko27 3y ago
A soviet is a governing workers' council made up of workers from various local shop floors. A worker owned co-op under capitalism is still capitalist, although theoretically less exploitative. It is not necessarily Marxist and definitely not a soviet.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  Thanks!
roarcher 3y ago
[flagged]
- demondemidi 3y ago
  It is against the rules here to make personal attacks. And I added the smiley face, relax, I'm kidding.
  - roarcher 3y ago
    Fair enough, I removed the last sentence. Point still stands.
TimTheTinker 3y ago
Marx was talking about no ownership at all of any means of production -- i.e. all means of production are owned by the "collective". It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it's only ever resulted in destroyed livelihoods, unmotivated workers, and unfed millions (except when the USSR invaded Ukraine in the early 1930s to steal their grain to feed their own people).

LastMuel 3y ago

I don't think employee owned, by definition, means equally shared and profits equally distributed. Which may be the root of the confusion.

dhc02 3y ago
The way most ESOP plans work is more like this: 1. Owner[s] sell their stock to the company (note the company needs to be fairly successful to have the cash to buy the shares. Sometimes it's bought all at once, but often on some sort of multi-year payment plan. Bob's Red Mill took approx. 10 years to buy out Bob and his partners.) 2. The company puts the stock into a trust held for the benefit of employees. 3. A portion of shares may be immediately distributed to employees based on key status, years of service, etc. 4. The shares are used as part of benefit packages. It's sort of like a 401k that the employees don't actually have to pay anything to participate in. The longer you're there, and the more important your role (generally), the more you end up owning, and it's generally treated like employer 401k matches in terms of income tax. Usually after you reach a certain threshold, you're allowed to sell your shares to others or back to the company in order to diversify.

richardgreeko27 3y ago

A soviet is a governing workers' council made up of workers from various local shop floors. A worker owned co-op under capitalism is still capitalist, although theoretically less exploitative. It is not necessarily Marxist and definitely not a soviet.

demondemidi 3y ago
Thanks!

roarcher 3y ago

[flagged]

demondemidi 3y ago
It is against the rules here to make personal attacks. And I added the smiley face, relax, I'm kidding.
- roarcher 3y ago
  Fair enough, I removed the last sentence. Point still stands.

TimTheTinker 3y ago

Marx was talking about no ownership at all of any means of production -- i.e. all means of production are owned by the "collective". It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it's only ever resulted in destroyed livelihoods, unmotivated workers, and unfed millions (except when the USSR invaded Ukraine in the early 1930s to steal their grain to feed their own people).