3 ms·

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

by rybosworld 2y ago

thesuitonym 2y ago
It's the workers owning the means of production, in what way is that not socialist?
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  It is. People don’t realize socialism isn’t mutually exclusive with capitalism.
  - tech_ken 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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").
- triceratops 2y ago
  Is a law firm socialist?
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  ignore him, he's got hacker news debate bro vibes.
orwin 2y ago
It is the worker owning the mean of production, so i don't think you can do more socialist than that to be honest, it's almost the definition of socialism (communism for fellow europeans). You can find some differences between western co-op and the socialist ideal (mainly, you still have hierarchy and a power structure mostly determined by how much you make), but to me it seems mostly academics.
- rybosworld 2y ago
  Workers participating in ownership is not what socialism is. Socialism is about societal ownership. A coop is not societal ownership. It is still private ownership in practice. How many tech workers own shares in their company? Are those companies socialist?
  - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
    This is one of those cases where subtly different definitions of technical words are being used in contradictory ways. A very common definition for capitalism vs socialism in Leftist spaces is concerned with power and economics, with socialism being when labor has the power to dictate the allocation of capital, whereas capitalism is where capital has the power to dictate the allocation of labor. A more political definition looking at government is "socialism is when capital is allocated for the benefit of the collective, capitalism is when individuals are granted exclusive ownership of capital to allocate how they choose". Note that a worker's co-op meets the first definition of socialism, and the second definition of capitalism.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

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

thesuitonym 2y ago

It's the workers owning the means of production, in what way is that not socialist?

teaearlgraycold 2y ago
It is. People don’t realize socialism isn’t mutually exclusive with capitalism.
- tech_ken 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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").
triceratops 2y ago
Is a law firm socialist?
greenie_beans 2y ago
ignore him, he's got hacker news debate bro vibes.

orwin 2y ago

It is the worker owning the mean of production, so i don't think you can do more socialist than that to be honest, it's almost the definition of socialism (communism for fellow europeans). You can find some differences between western co-op and the socialist ideal (mainly, you still have hierarchy and a power structure mostly determined by how much you make), but to me it seems mostly academics.

rybosworld 2y ago
Workers participating in ownership is not what socialism is. Socialism is about societal ownership. A coop is not societal ownership. It is still private ownership in practice. How many tech workers own shares in their company? Are those companies socialist?
- OkayPhysicist 2y ago
  This is one of those cases where subtly different definitions of technical words are being used in contradictory ways. A very common definition for capitalism vs socialism in Leftist spaces is concerned with power and economics, with socialism being when labor has the power to dictate the allocation of capital, whereas capitalism is where capital has the power to dictate the allocation of labor. A more political definition looking at government is "socialism is when capital is allocated for the benefit of the collective, capitalism is when individuals are granted exclusive ownership of capital to allocate how they choose". Note that a worker's co-op meets the first definition of socialism, and the second definition of capitalism.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]