/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

is the structure of worker ownership each worker having equity in the company like shares?

socialism in one business

>>2616351
That Engels quote isn't saying what you think it's saying. Basically:
<Workers already do capitalism equally good and more honestly than the bourgeoisie.
Your distortion:
<We need more worker's capitalism!!!

the hell of capitalism is the firm, not the boss

>>2616387
>multi-pronged strategy
the difference is that unions is one of the many ways proletarian struggle manifests. this isnt the case with coops lmfao, much less in the 21st century, and the least you want as a communist is for the proletariat to waste what little energy they have fighting useless battles

>>2616365
midwits love their quotemining

>>2616416
>midwits love their quotemining

it was already stated this isn't a debate addict thread and yet you came here anyway. if you really hate co ops so much, let the thread die.

>>2616416
>the firm
what is destestable about the corporate firm is its irrationality, and as OP had quoted engels on, a worker co-op orders production more efficiently, because they are more interested in total product than marginal product, lets say. for example, if the availability of remote work (e.g. working from home) exists, why wouldnt a worker-run organisation favour this innovation? similarly, if there are avenues for automation, yet the stakeholders of a company will only benefit by its introduction, then there can be no loss (e.g. unemployment). the issue with the firm is its structure of ownership as well.

>>2616416
>Actual Engels Quote With Full Context And Source Linked
<qUoTeMiNiNg
>GMIL webcomic
<#RealTheory
If you're gonna shit on cooperatives at least present some actual critical work like vid related.

That being said, I think co-ops get shit on too much. They are a viable path for struggle. Like OP outright admits, they're no substitute for revolution, and are just part of the legal half of struggle (Lenin stressed both legal and illegal struggle in his various works against Liquidationism and Otzevism).

If Engels admits cooperatives are "are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies" (emphasis on the word bourgeois) then he admits that co-operatives are not only not bourgeois (by implication) but also that they can potentially, in some situations, outcompete the bourgeoisie. Large cooperatives like Mondragon prove that cooperatives can grow into huge firms. That's also good. Worker cooperatives could potentially grow into Worker-owned monopolies if competition and buyouts are made a priority by the worker-members. Vertical and horizontal integration of a nation's firms into a worker-owned monopoly could prove a very strong thorn in the bourgeoisie's side. They may even at some point have to make cooperatives illegal, which would agitate the workers and force them down a more militant and illegal path, which is also good as an accelerant towards revolution. The exhaustion of peaceful avenues shows the proletariat through experience the need for violent, illegal, and militant struggle. This is part of why the legal half of struggle is needed: Its exhaustion proves to the workers still deluded by reformism that the game is rigged.

>>2616416
>the least you want as a communist is for the proletariat to waste what little energy they have fighting useless battles
like debating on leftypol? i'd much rather start a cooperative even if it fails because then at least I can meet people and gain experience in a real life struggle.

>>2616355
>is the structure of worker ownership each worker having equity in the company like shares?
Depends on the kind of cooperative I think.

From Wikipedia:
<When the current cooperative movement resurfaced in the 1960s, it developed mostly on a new system of "collective ownership" where par value shares were issued as symbols of egalitarian voting rights. Typically, a member may only own one share to maintain the egalitarian ethos. Once brought in as a member and after a period of time on probation usually so the new candidate can be evaluated, they would be given the power to manage the coop without "ownership" in the traditional sense. In the UK, this system is known as common ownership.

>>2616452
Why would you ever put real life effort into something you know deep down is fruitless? Putting yourself through that heartbreak is true insanity

>>2616457
>something you know deep down is fruitless
like arguing ITT?

>>2616458
At least arguing here blows off steam without real consequences

>start controversial thread
WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME?

>>2616456
>Why would you ever put real life effort into something you know deep down is fruitless
bruh they already answered u
<even if it fails because then at least I can meet people and gain experience in a real life struggle.
>>2616459
>At least arguing here blows off steam
omg you're the same anon who was saying the proletariat isn't real in the other thread and insisting everything is "kayfabe." my favorite new troll!

>>2616461
<This is a thread about organizing cooperatives. It is not about debating the merits or lack thereof of cooperatives.
close the tab, debate addict

>>2616416
I like the strip because the author self-identifies as radical left who is just smarter than everyone else while repeating a stale right-wing talking point about co-ops that also happens to be empirically false (co-ops survive longer on average) so it really sums up everything retarded about GMIL. I also like how you complain about quote-mining while your first sentence is itself a quote, and an incredibly stupid one at that, seeing that quote is like a siren going WEEOOOWEOOO STUPID SHIT INCOMING.

>>2616462
>and insisting everything is "kayfabe." my favorite new troll!
If you've been here for longer than like a week, you'd know exactly why he called that dude a wrestling heel. We have this guy who shows up any time you say anything that he deems insufficiently positive about China, even if it's praise, and preceeds to make the exact same arguments in the exact same way using the exact same phrasing in the exact same broken English about how China has fully achieved communism and ended the class struggle, and that you are a tool of imperialism for not loving it as much as he is.

Nobody's sure quite what his deal is, but I can tell you right now that there's a non-zero chance that this very post will summon him.

>when workers own the means of production
<FUCK YOU CAPITALIST SCUM
>when the state owns the means of production
<finally… now get to work!
hmm.

That's you Dick Wolff, I know.

>>2616495
Who owns the state?

>>2616820
12 member politburo.

What kind of industries and places would cooperatives even maintain a competitive advantage? I've been under the impression that industries which demand a capital-intensive startup, like most manufacturing, incentivizes centralized monopolistic structure and makes unviable small capitalist enterprises, much less cooperative ones.

>>2616416
This
>Try to start a co-op
>Have to pick between class conscious workers that have no idea how to work manual labour or classcucks that don't care a single bit about it but know how to work.

>>2634626
the key would be to create a worker owned monopoly by having small cooperatives merge with each other over time. and just because small businesses can't compete with monopolies doesn't doom them to total bankruptcy instantly. Many of them survive a good while before going under.

>>2616351
Ignore the haters OP. I am all for sources of income for the party and means of subsistence for valuable cadre as well as one's community. A coop by itself is long term just subject to market forces, but as part of a movement is an agent for dual power.

>>2616449
>If Engels admits cooperatives are "are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies" (emphasis on the word bourgeois) then he admits that co-operatives are not only not bourgeois (by implication)
true
> but also that they can potentially, in some situations, outcompete the bourgeoisie.
less certain
>Large cooperatives like Mondragon prove that cooperatives can grow into huge firms. That's also good. Worker cooperatives could potentially grow into Worker-owned monopolies if competition and buyouts are made a priority by the worker-members.
There have also been situations where traditional bourgeois companies became cooperative after a strike demanded worker ownership. It happened once in France I think. So it is entirely possible for the workers to use strikes win ownership stakes. Someone would say this is revisionism and breeds labor aristocracy though.
>Vertical and horizontal integration of a nation's firms into a worker-owned monopoly could prove a very strong thorn in the bourgeoisie's side. They may even at some point have to make cooperatives illegal, which would agitate the workers and force them down a more militant and illegal path, which is also good as an accelerant towards revolution.
Also an interesting and underrated point.
>n. The exhaustion of peaceful avenues shows the proletariat through experience the need for violent, illegal, and militant struggle. This is part of why the legal half of struggle is needed: Its exhaustion proves to the workers still deluded by reformism that the game is rigged.
This is consistent with Lenin. Good post overall.

>>2634626
any cooperatives willing to excessively exploit themselves,and even then they can't just have turn over to get rid of the workers that no longer have anything to squeeze from

the type of industry or place doesn't matter,since in the real world managers (ie,people employed by the "leader")are the one commanding those structures,so what's the real difference ?

and like the other said,the inevitability of capital consolidation happens because of the rate of profit declining,and even if it's steady,it's FAR from having killed small bussiness entirely