Yes I know worker coops aren't socialism because they still have markets and commodity production but could they at least break the power of the bourgeoisie since there would be no more capitalists at most there would be proletarians and petit bourgeoises
Given this isn't turning 100% of for profit businesses in a country into worker coops a good intermediate goal since it starves the bourgeoisie of their profits which they use to rule with politics?
>>2355640Now if I remember correctly, China had a lot of cooperatives during the era of the GPCR, but by the 00s a lot of those had returned to private ownership out of a lack of dedication from the members. People stopped showing up except a handful who eventually took private control. So even public ownership can decay into private ownership. As always, eternal vigilance is required. There is no socialism button where socialism becomes permanent. Protection of the revolution is necessary. One thing I think people have trouble appreciating is that when you win you have to wield power. By wielding power you become the "establishment" that you previously hated and sought to present yourself as the opposite of. So you have to distinguish yourself from past establishments while still wielding power enough to keep society socialist from wannabe bourgeois counterrervolutionaries.
>>2355625There are cooperative versions of banks called credit unions
>Credit unions are not-for-profit financial cooperatives owned by their members. When you join a credit union, you become a member-owner with voting rights and a say in how the organization is run. Credit unions operate under a cooperative structure where profits are returned to members through better rates, lower fees, and improved services. Each member has an equal vote in selecting the board of directors, regardless of how much money they have deposited. Credit unions may have membership restrictions based on geography, employer or association. >>2355640it's because you fuckers think abstractly rather than dialectically
>"are cooperatives good, in vaccuum, in themselves, metaphysically? the idea of a cooperative, is it good, in principle?"instead of doing concrete analysis of a concrete situation and asking whether cooperatives are good as part of a comprehensive revolutionary strategy / socialist construction
the short answer to is [anything] good, is that anything done outside of concrete revolutionary strategy is bad, because everything done in isolation under capitalism is just participating in capitalism
>>2355512Okay, why tf you telling us?
Is this zoomer humour? I don't get it.
>>2355512>Yes I know worker coops aren't socialism because they still have markets and commodity productionNo they aren't socialism because they have no foundation of actually challenging capitalist rule and establishing a socialist society through proletarian revolution
> could they at least break the power of the bourgeoisie since there would be no more capitalists at most there would be proletarians and petit bourgeoisesNo they could not because they have zero practical mechanisms or interest to do so
>>2357784>publicly-traded, not publicly-ownedwhats the difference? any member of society can own a share in our biggest corporations.
>consumer co-operatives and community co-operatives for example but there isn't a legal system that forces private companies to become something elseownership implies a relationship of privation. whats the difference between a "co-op" and a company with equally distributed shares?
>it could be instead replaced with something entirely different.such as? the raison d'etre of a company is to make money.
>>2357786> any member of society can own a share in our biggest corporations.I mean the profits would go to the public sector / government provided social infrastructure or directly paid to people, while a publicly traded company they would go to the shareholders with the largest shares taking the largest profits. My focus wasn't profits though but who makes decisions production and services if they are actually needed or otherwise desired.
> whats the difference between a "co-op" and a company with equally distributed shares?So employee stock ownership vs worker co-op? Employee stock ownership companies iirc operate same way as a normal private company owned by a capitalist or capitalists but the stock ownership is like an automatic bonus when the company does well. It's just used as a perk to draw in people to work at such places. A worker co-operative the ownership is with the workers and they either make decisions through direct voting or they elect lead positions to run things. The line gets blurrier for employee stock ownership if they also partake in workplace democracy but usually they are still privately owned by some individual or the largest stock owners but I could be wrong. As for community co-ops these tend to be things like electric companies but I they have elections but on the financial side I am less clear how they work. I have no clue how consumer co-ops are ran because I am not familiar with any.
> the raison d'etre of a company is to make money.It is kind of semantics here. Obviously in a capitalist system it would need to produce money or everyone working in a co-op would not have money the capitalist society they live in demands. What I meant was the people who worked there or the community could decide what they do from then on. This could mean changing what is produced to something else entirely since if a business failed because it was a non profitable goal rather than just poorly managed or a rug pull then they would obviously do something else or meet the same fate.
>>2357804>I mean the profits would go to the public sector / government so you want state capitalism like china?
>My focus wasn't profits though but who makes decisions production and services if they are actually needed or otherwise desired. the market is a democracy voted on by consumers
>A worker co-operative the ownership is with the workers and they either make decisions through direct voting or they elect lead positions to run things.thats why the way boards of directors work too. they are elected by the shareholders to manage companies.
>What I meant was the people who worked there or the community could decide what they do from then on. a company ideally makes money by providing goods and services to communities. the work performed by business is in its very self-interest, attested for by something like the profit motive.
>This could mean changing what is produced to something else entirelydont capitalists do this already? a capitalist doesnt want to go broke. the only risk for the public is that people lose their jobs.
>>2358055Read the book
>>2358078Critics still as illiterate
>break the power of the bourgeoisieyeah bro property owners become wholesome chungus if they say they are socialists or whatever
>>2358527>>2358840>failed to abolish capitalismit cant period, thats not how capital works
>>2355518>By that logic, trve socialism has never existedCorrect.
I'm still waiting for any so-called "socialist" to abolish markets, commodity production, and wage labour.
>>2358888What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say that?
Do you think nationalisation is the entirety of what socialism entails? Do you think state capitalism isn't a thing that happens?
>>2358895>What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say that?no you just ignored this little point of the analysis of capital from marx, ignoring the Gosplan was a tackle in the path of dissolution of markets, the existance of private property and appropriation of socially produced wealth into private hands are deleted for not being connivent with your desired conclusion.
>Do you think nationalisation is the entirety of what socialism entails? meaningless as nationalisations on capitalist countries won't be integrated into the state aparatus and production on national levels like they did in Socialist, or whatever you want to call them, states.
>Do you think state capitalism isn't a thing that happens?an complete meme and an empty comparasion, any capitalist nation with massive state backed propriety like Iraq and Saudi Arabia in no way breaks from private property, there is no dirigents and most of them have Public-Private coop plus stock markets no different than a capitalist system, many interacting with their local richmans interests as state capitalist nations still act as private property defenders and are just as quick as doing waves of legal privatisations to appease the ruling class, none of this in anyway comparable to Actual governments that called themselves socialist.
>>2355512>aren't socialismthey are quite good close to socialism. The USSR had that, by a lot, besides the state owned companies.
>Given this isn't turning 100% of for profit businesses in a country into worker coops a good intermediate goal since it starves the bourgeoisie of their profits which they use to rule with politics?yes, and no. one of the problem of cooperatives is that they can be easily turned into capitalist means of production without oversight. if the cooperative owners decide that any new worker incorporated is not going to be part of the cooperative ownership, the cooperative starts to do the same as a capitalist entity, then no. if they stay true to keeping any new worker as a part of the cooperative ownership, then yes. to avoid an entrapment the cooperatives must give a period of an intensive ideological training, and be tested to each new acquired worker, avoiding with this, that you have fifth columns voting to abandon the cooperative principle.
in practicality, cooperatives aren't too effective if the states isn't proactively working with them, i.ex. forcing the dissolution of each cooperative when any of them strand away of the principles of cooperatives.
there you go.
>>2357786>whats the difference? any member of society can own a share in our biggest corporations.publicly owned = the public owns it
publicly traded = anyone can buy a share
>>2355992For one that they are producing for profit to begin with, with the logic of the market, complete with anarchy of production that comes with it, a trillion brands of the same product, waste for the sake of consumer choice and profit, and the necessity of this system to be outcompeted internationally and nationally, if you seek to fairly (according to your internal abitration) compensate each worker, you will have no chance to compete against the alien and inhuman force that is capital. Your question is still quite valid, to paraphrase you
>If this is not 'From each according to their ability [..]' then what is ?It is not because it seeks "the best conditions" under which to fullfil the antithesis of it, as I mentioned above, it will never allow the producer to fish, herd, sew, etc without being a fisherman etc etc, it is a perpetuity of the same system, same way of life, etc. Your earnest question and goal as a communist should not be "how can we get workers the best wage", but "how can we transcend and overcome production for profit (and thus necessarily for wages) alltogether?
>>2356420I believe this to be a valid sentiment and position to hold too, however there are many things that go against capitalism that in turn are not quite conducive to build up something new, for example refusing to sell your labour power at all, logically does go against capitalism. "The people" as a generality does not make sense; the working class as a subset of "The people" may share with "The people" an interest to overcome capitalism, but may do so for entirely different reasons. This will seem like pedantry but I feel like it is an important distinction nonetheless. Then why is it that you want workers to be enslaved to capital at better conditions still?
>>2358055The issue is that it is not fair, seeing that production as a wholly-social aggregate being a cooperative process that transcends enterprise, factory floor, transport, etc for the members of one sector to pocket surplus themselves, all surplus should go towards the social whole so productive capability can be increased, work time reduced, etc. "Democratizing" implies the need for Democracy, which is generally understood as a means to abitrate opposing interest (often within a class, yes); but you see: what opposing interests does in this case the individual gold miner and society at large have ? It is precisely what I laid out above, he has an interest to pocket surplus, for legitimate reasons, as does society have to want to pocket and reinvest it, this interest is individually contradictive but socially already a resolved one in this scenario, and does because of that not require abitration.
>>2358524Also entirely a valid question and sentiment, and I assure you that a rational planned circular economy with its surplus going towards the betterment of the present productive forces will almost always lead to a better quality of life almost immediately, as only that can actually historically approach the overcoming of the law of value to begin with, albeit the elimination of waste and productive anarchy will come with loss of luxuries like on-demand food delivery for instance, this is the crux of the "treatler" meme.
>>2358527Yes, it inherently can not, it is a different form of capitalism, even if preferable to the workers under it.
>>2358870I feel like you are just parroting what your friends on twitter are telling you. Spouting things that may be true is still nonsense spouting and ultimately schizophrenic.
>>2358888To be the devils advocate, doing so only hinders the efficient flow of commodity production and puts a wrench in the machinery that operates under the same logic as a western firm would, a competition it necessarily will also lose eventually.
>>2355512Unless your building a alliance of several workers owned co-ops then it's useless.
Best it can do is basically become a eco friendly alternative to main stream shops but then it's just petite burgeoise and if you make it explicity socialist/communist/marxist then it would end up as Stirner's milk shop.
So the answer is no
Unique IPs: 58