5 ms·

Co-ops are just the way that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. And while capitalist businesses can usually undermine them using all the tools of capi

Co-ops are just the way that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. And while capitalist businesses can usually undermine them using all the tools of capitalism, notice that co-op workers are usually happier and paid better, co-op customers are treated better and receive better service, and the community suffers less from having a co-op in the area.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
How are co-ops anti-capitalist? They appear to me no different than a shareholder or partnership. Are most law firms socialistic in that they have partners who work for the firm getting a share of its profits?
- anon291 3y ago
  They're objectively not any less capitalist than a private company with restrictions on share transfers.
- thesuitonym 3y ago
  The workers own the means of production. That's the only thing that socialism means.
  - rybosworld 3y ago
    This is completely incorrect.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - greenie_beans 3y ago
      how is "socializing" the ownership of a business not socialist?
      - rybosworld 3y ago
        The business ownership in a coop is not "socialized". It's still privately owned. The definition of socialism is not, and never has been, "workers owning the means of production." A coop still meets all the characteristics of capitalist entity: - privately owned - for profit, with profits going to shareholders If you think coops are socialist, then you must also think any company that has more than 1 shareholder is socialist. If you think private ownership (which coops protect and uphold) is allowed under socialism, then you don't understand what socialism is.
        greenie_beans 3y ago
        your opinion about the semantics of "coop" and "socialism" is wrong. most semantic debates are worthless anyway. every socialist i know and have read agree that a coop is a socialist organization, and we will keep creating these enterprises as an alternative to capitalism, until one day, ideally, the capitalist corporations won't be able to compete in the job market with the coops, forcing them to socialize their ownership and power structures. despite whether you think it's socialism or not. here are the 7 cooperative principles. please explain how this is capitalism? https://www.electric.coop/seven-cooperative-principles%E2%80%8B https://www.electric.coop/seven-cooperative-principles%E2%80...
        rybosworld 3y ago
        There's no semantics. > every socialist i know and have read agree that a coop is a socialist organization Every unicorn I know thinks leprechauns are real. A coop protects and upholds private ownership and distribution of profits to their shareholders. That's not semantics. Socialism does not protect private ownership. Socialism does not distribute profits to shareholders (because there are none). That's also not semantics. If you want to have a non-semantical conversation, the onus is on you.
  - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole The community is normal understood as the complete body politic. A partnership is not socialistic. Lawyers are capitalistic in most books, but they have partnerships. The organization of a business doesn’t matter in capitalism. Capitalism, boiled down to private property and market. A co-op competing with other companies largely without price control is just as capitalistic as IBM or Google.
- greenie_beans 3y ago
  "capitalism" is simply a way to organize an enterprise. an enterprise can participate in a market without structuring the organization as a capitalist enterprise. free market != capitalism. american-style capitalism consists of a political system that supports the capitalist enterprise structure.
  - gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
    Definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. The private owner here is a co-op. Not socialist.
    - greenie_beans 3y ago
      this is wrong. see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145796
- dbingham 3y ago
  Because labor is calling the shots and reaping the benefits, not the capital investors.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> co-op customers are treated better and receive better service I’d argue this is because a co-op can attract higher-quality workers for less than a purely profit-minded shareholder-owned business. (Similar to companies with a unique culture.) Generalise the model and you’ll get the co-op equivalent of the 70s-era UAW running roughshod where they can.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think alternatively/additively they may be more responsive around firing ineffective staff, and a culture of productivity. When workers/managers directly pay for their co-worker's unproductiveness, they have an incentive to replace opposed to simply hire more additional staff.
rybosworld 3y ago
Co-op is not a socialist model at all. It's just an alternative corporate structure.
- thesuitonym 3y ago
  It's the workers owning the means of production, in what way is that not socialist?
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    It is. People don’t realize socialism isn’t mutually exclusive with capitalism.
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      Maybe more precise to say "not mutually exclusive with free market exchange", 'capitalism' (as a socialist would define it) is primarily an ownership arrangement.
  - rybosworld 3y ago
    That's a bastardized interpretation of what socialism is. Socialism is defined by social ownership. The society as a whole owns production, rather than individuals or groups. A coop is a just group that divides up ownership among all the workers, not the society/community. The division isn't necessarily even. And the workers don't necessarily have 100% ownership between them. For example, there are coops with publicly traded stock. A coop can be, and often is, still privately owned. If you're definition of socialism is "Workers owning means of production" (which by the way, is not and never has been the definition), then every FAANG is a socialist entity for awarding their employees shares.
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      There is a full spectrum of left ideologies that call themselves Socialist, so your claim of "is not and never has been the definition" is flatly wrong. Collectivists and Syndicalists, in particular, are Socialist schools that are strongly onboard with worker co-ops (typically described as trade unions running their businesses). And FAANGS are not owned by their workers, full stop. Less than 5% of Google's shares are owned by employees, and most of those shares are owned by management. Bezos personally owns more Amazon shares than everyone else in the workforce combined, Meta is well known for being in a strange situation where Zuckerberg personally owns more than half of all voting shares. Vanguard owns more shares in Netflix than the entire workforce combined. Apple has negligible employee owned shares. Your misinterpretation comes from a willful twisting of the words "workers" (does not typically mean "the founder personally") and "owning" (which is typically understood as "having control over" rather than "maybe could break the tie between a handful of investment firms").

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gadflyinyoureye 3y ago

How are co-ops anti-capitalist? They appear to me no different than a shareholder or partnership. Are most law firms socialistic in that they have partners who work for the firm getting a share of its profits?

anon291 3y ago
They're objectively not any less capitalist than a private company with restrictions on share transfers.
thesuitonym 3y ago
The workers own the means of production. That's the only thing that socialism means.
- rybosworld 3y ago
  This is completely incorrect.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - greenie_beans 3y ago
    how is "socializing" the ownership of a business not socialist?
    - rybosworld 3y ago
      The business ownership in a coop is not "socialized". It's still privately owned. The definition of socialism is not, and never has been, "workers owning the means of production." A coop still meets all the characteristics of capitalist entity: - privately owned - for profit, with profits going to shareholders If you think coops are socialist, then you must also think any company that has more than 1 shareholder is socialist. If you think private ownership (which coops protect and uphold) is allowed under socialism, then you don't understand what socialism is.
      - greenie_beans 3y ago
        your opinion about the semantics of "coop" and "socialism" is wrong. most semantic debates are worthless anyway. every socialist i know and have read agree that a coop is a socialist organization, and we will keep creating these enterprises as an alternative to capitalism, until one day, ideally, the capitalist corporations won't be able to compete in the job market with the coops, forcing them to socialize their ownership and power structures. despite whether you think it's socialism or not. here are the 7 cooperative principles. please explain how this is capitalism? https://www.electric.coop/seven-cooperative-principles%E2%80%8B https://www.electric.coop/seven-cooperative-principles%E2%80...
        rybosworld 3y ago
        There's no semantics. > every socialist i know and have read agree that a coop is a socialist organization Every unicorn I know thinks leprechauns are real. A coop protects and upholds private ownership and distribution of profits to their shareholders. That's not semantics. Socialism does not protect private ownership. Socialism does not distribute profits to shareholders (because there are none). That's also not semantics. If you want to have a non-semantical conversation, the onus is on you.
- gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole The community is normal understood as the complete body politic. A partnership is not socialistic. Lawyers are capitalistic in most books, but they have partnerships. The organization of a business doesn’t matter in capitalism. Capitalism, boiled down to private property and market. A co-op competing with other companies largely without price control is just as capitalistic as IBM or Google.
greenie_beans 3y ago
"capitalism" is simply a way to organize an enterprise. an enterprise can participate in a market without structuring the organization as a capitalist enterprise. free market != capitalism. american-style capitalism consists of a political system that supports the capitalist enterprise structure.
- gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  Definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. The private owner here is a co-op. Not socialist.
  - greenie_beans 3y ago
    this is wrong. see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40145796
dbingham 3y ago
Because labor is calling the shots and reaping the benefits, not the capital investors.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> co-op customers are treated better and receive better service I’d argue this is because a co-op can attract higher-quality workers for less than a purely profit-minded shareholder-owned business. (Similar to companies with a unique culture.) Generalise the model and you’ll get the co-op equivalent of the 70s-era UAW running roughshod where they can.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think alternatively/additively they may be more responsive around firing ineffective staff, and a culture of productivity. When workers/managers directly pay for their co-worker's unproductiveness, they have an incentive to replace opposed to simply hire more additional staff.

rybosworld 3y ago

Co-op is not a socialist model at all. It's just an alternative corporate structure.

thesuitonym 3y ago
It's the workers owning the means of production, in what way is that not socialist?
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  It is. People don’t realize socialism isn’t mutually exclusive with capitalism.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    Maybe more precise to say "not mutually exclusive with free market exchange", 'capitalism' (as a socialist would define it) is primarily an ownership arrangement.
- rybosworld 3y ago
  That's a bastardized interpretation of what socialism is. Socialism is defined by social ownership. The society as a whole owns production, rather than individuals or groups. A coop is a just group that divides up ownership among all the workers, not the society/community. The division isn't necessarily even. And the workers don't necessarily have 100% ownership between them. For example, there are coops with publicly traded stock. A coop can be, and often is, still privately owned. If you're definition of socialism is "Workers owning means of production" (which by the way, is not and never has been the definition), then every FAANG is a socialist entity for awarding their employees shares.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    There is a full spectrum of left ideologies that call themselves Socialist, so your claim of "is not and never has been the definition" is flatly wrong. Collectivists and Syndicalists, in particular, are Socialist schools that are strongly onboard with worker co-ops (typically described as trade unions running their businesses). And FAANGS are not owned by their workers, full stop. Less than 5% of Google's shares are owned by employees, and most of those shares are owned by management. Bezos personally owns more Amazon shares than everyone else in the workforce combined, Meta is well known for being in a strange situation where Zuckerberg personally owns more than half of all voting shares. Vanguard owns more shares in Netflix than the entire workforce combined. Apple has negligible employee owned shares. Your misinterpretation comes from a willful twisting of the words "workers" (does not typically mean "the founder personally") and "owning" (which is typically understood as "having control over" rather than "maybe could break the tie between a handful of investment firms").