Youtube comments of Michael Mappin (@michaelmappin1830).
-
192
-
108
-
60
-
58
-
46
-
39
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
18
-
@michelem7786 , who said anything about the value of a single worker being more or equal to the wealth produced by a company has a whole?
You don't seem to understand that employees could not get the full value of their labour when they work at a capitalist company. When they work at a socially own company, then they do get all of the well that their labour produces, after expenses, of course. that's why the income disparity between the highest and lowest paid worker at a Cooperative generally Falls between 3 to 1 and 7 to 1. That's because it's usually not possible for a worker regardless of their education or talent to work more than seven times harder than someone else. When a Cooperative produces 25 billion dollars in sales, that money goes to the workers. That is more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. However, when a company such as Walmart or Amazon does 25 billion in sales, that money goes to idle shareholders, many of whom are not even in the same country.
You see, capitalism doesn't even make sense economically or mathematically. Jobs are tight consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. They then have to compete for the remaining jobs, and that competition drives the value of Labor down even further. but how can workers afford the purchase all of the goods and services they are producing if they only get a fraction of the wealth that their labour produces? at the workers only get paid 25% of the wealth, they're only going to be able to afford 25% of what's in circulation. capitalist companies want to maximize profit. they accomplished that by keeping wages as low as possible while getting the workers to produce as much as possible. That creates a huge disparity between purchasing power and the goods and services that need to be purchased in order to maintain jobs through consumption. It's a contradiction. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.
however, worker-owned companies don't have that problem because wages are commensurate with production output. if your labour produces $1,000 worth of wealth, you now have $1,000 to spend. however, when your labour produces $1,000 worth of wealth at a capitalist company, you'd be lucky if you end up with half that amount of money. every dollar that goes to you is one less dollar that goes to your employer. every extra dollar that goes to your employer, that's one less dollar you have to spend into the economy for goods and services produced by your fellow workers.
also keep in mind that markets are not unique to capitalism. Production and businesses are not unique to capitalism. Merely selling the product of your labour is not capitalism. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Capitalism requires capitalizing on other people's labour. also keep in mind that labour includes both mental and physical efforts. our economy is the sum total of our work. Capitalist are just middlemen parasites that reduce purchasing power.
for example, not too long ago Bill Gates bought a big chunk of the Canadian railroad. Billions of dollars that used to go to workers is now going to mr. Gates. That's billions of dollars no longer being spent into the economy. Any erosion the first of the power has to be offset with access to credit. Credit keeps the system going temporarily but inevitably the interest attached to that credit will reduce purchasing power even further. that is a natural byproduct of capitalism and is required to maintain jobs through consumption. that's because workers do not get paid the full value of their labour, we can produce far more than we're capable of consuming and it takes less and less labour to produce more and more stuff with each passing day.
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@CesarGarcia-og8rz , that simply isn't true. Capitalism is not the only system that allows competent people to be free. I can't believe you said that. Capitalism is about owning for a living. It's the idea that you don't actually have to work. You can just accumulate capital and live off of other people's labour. Capitalism is literally economic feudalism.
Just like with the Monopoly board game, capitalist one to accumulate as much Capital as possible. It ends up going to the richest members of society. For example, Bill Gates is now the largest owner of Farmland in the United States. He even owns a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system. The more Capital you own, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. So now we have this situation where the riches 1% owned most of the capital on the planet. Therefore they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced how much workers get paid, what kind of environment people have to labour in, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. That's why they get most of the wealth produced by labour. Obviously you should get most of the wealth produced by your labour, not someone else. And by default they control the government and economic system. That's why regardless how people vote or complain, the banks keep getting bailed out, the military budget keeps expanding, Wars are unending, Etc. Under capitalism the government does not represent workers. It represents the owners of capital; the owning class.
The founding fathers were very clear that workers should be relegated to Mere spectators. All workers can do under this system is fight for Privileges and protections under the law. The capitalist class did everything they could to prevent the eight-hour day, the five-day work week, minimum wage, child labour laws, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, Etc. If they had their way, we'd still be working 16 hours a day along with nine-year-old children.
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
@useresu301 , there's hundreds of thousands of them. Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from those types of workplaces. https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@jwdeet3396 , democracy has nothing to do with freedom? It's the epitome of freedom. If people can't democratically decide how to run their communities, workplaces, schools, Etc. Then someone else has to make those decisions. And of course the ruling class wants to be in that dominant position. And that's why they hate democracy.
Of course there has to be accountability, as with all things. Just like with capitalism, there has to be rules and the protection of Rights. That's why we have checks and balances. Otherwise, people would be selling children, slaves, organs, Etc. the idea that we shouldn't have a Democratic Society, or that we should get rid of democracy, that doesn't make any sense. If you eliminate democracy, you end up with a dictatorship or some other form of unaccountable hierarchy.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
@JumpJolpes_23 , ideal capitalism in the United States was back in the days of jpmorgan, carnegie, rockefeller, etcetera. There were nine year old children working 6 to 7 days a week, 14 hours a day, there were no worker safety standards, no old age pensions, no consumer safety standards, no unemployment insurance, Etc. There was widespread poverty with massive profits for the owners of capital. Thousands of people would die from basic food and water contamination because there were no consumer safety standards. Thousands died on the job because there were no occupation regulations. That's the ideal capitalism that the owning class wants to return to. That's why they prefer having production in countries with the fewest regulations.
Capitalism is not about working. It's about accumulating wealth without working. Capitalism is literally the economic system of parasites. The idea is to get Workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. And then you take what the workers produce and sell it for as much as possible.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@juniorgod321 , you're not making any sense. There are thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world.
Just to give one of a thousand examples, Mondragon, a Federation of 120 companies, owned and run by the workers! 100,000 employees, 25 billion annual sales! They own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, factories, they even have their own social programs and safety-net! Those Research Laboratories are so advanced that Intel, Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company actually pays them to conduct research and solve problems on their behalf!
https://youtu.be/8ZoI0C1mPek
Because the workers are actually doing their own work and own their own means of production, that 25 billion dollars in sales goes to the workers. When a capitalist companies such as Walmart or Amazon makes 25 billion dollars in sales, most of that money goes to idle shareholders, many of whom are not even in the same country. Do you understand? In one situation the workers do all the work and get most of the money. in the other situation the workers do all the work but get the least amount of money. Do you understand? What do you think is more conducive to a free market in thriving economy? If workers have greater purchasing power, is that better for the market? How about when 44% of the population makes $18,000 a year or less? Jobs are tied to consumption. If people don't have enough money to consume, how are jobs maintained? Do you understand?
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@JumpJolpes_23 , and what do you mean socialism continues to be envy? What are you talking about? That doesn't even make any sense. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers. Why do so many prefer working at a socialist company rather than a capitalist company? For one, the workers get all of the wealth of their labor produces. Two, they own the product of their labor. 3, they get to make the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, etcetera. That's why statistically speaking workers at socialist companies are happier, more productive, more creative, there's less incidents of mental illness, workers take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of spousal abuse, suicide, substance abuse, etcetera. But when you work at a capitalist company everything you produce belongs to someone else. The boss gets to decide when you work, how hard you have to work, what you can wear, when you get to eat, when or if you even get a coffee break, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. As a result of workplace stress in the United States and because the United States is number one when it comes to First World countries regarding the number of people working low-wage jobs, over 25% of the population now has a mental illness. It's speculated that 50% of the population at some point in their lifetime will develop a mental illness. United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index. There are more people in the US relying on food stamps than the entire population of canada! 1 and 6 of American children doesn't get enough food to eat. 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and lithuania. Things are so bad now in the United States that literally over 54% of the population can't even read or write. Now in the United States the richest 1% has just about as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The US is basically a third world country for many of its citizens
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@youtuber6185 , this hypocrisy that you're referring to regarding speaking fees, do you have any citations to support what you're saying? As far as I know, Richard wolf, after expenses, donates most of the money he gets from speaking fees and Book Sales.
But regardless, charging money for a service that you're offering doesn't make a person a hypocrite. Under the Socialist system people will still be charging money for their services. Simply charging money for a product that you're producing, that doesn't make a person a capitalist.
And why do you say that socialism is worse than capitalism? What do you base that opinion on? You have these wild opinions but you don't do anything to actually support those opinions.
No, socialism is actually more conducive to free markets and thriving economies. Obviously you can't have an economic system where workers are constantly producing more than they can afford to buy. One of the reasons why capitalism is now dependant upon fractional Reserve banking. In order to have the market expand you have to increase purchasing power. But the goal of capitalism is in direct opposition to the basic principle of equilibrium and increasing purchasing power. It does the exact opposite. The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. So the more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have. You think that's a viable economic system? LOL. Socialism doesn't have that problem because workers own the product of their labour. If they produce a million dollars worth of goods and services, they now have a million dollars worth of purchasing power. When labor-saving technology reduces working hours and increases Prosperity, that wealth goes to the workers who in turn spended into the economy creating more demand. Labor-saving technology under capitalism results in workers being laid off or they have to compete with other unemployed people with drives the value of Labor down and profits up, exacerbating the entire disequilibrium
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@davideoking101 , yeah, when I get home I'll see if I can't find that one where he was giving a class and telling students that he believed ancient Egyptians had knowledge of DNA! He was looking at ancient drawings that somewhat resemble the helix. Then, sometime later when he was confronted by someone who asked him about this, he tried to deny it! Then when he was approached by someone else with the same information, he changed his story, saying that he didn't believe it, just that it was possible! Some of the audience in have an actual video the class! Caught! That one is funny.
Then there are those videos where he claims that certain people want to beat him, especially marxists, because they're too scared and can't argue against his points. But then, on the very same day that he went around shooting his mouth off, he raised his speaking fee in order to get out of a debate. since that time he's gone on to say, Marxist won't debate me. They're scared of me! but each time he's challenged, he backs out! unless it's with someone he has an agreement with and he doesn't have to worry about his reputation being damaged.
Have you seen those videos where he talks about his faith and belief in God? he's a self-professed right-wing Christian conservative!
oh, and then there is his giving speeches and many lectures for organization such as reasontv! :-) wow! So much for his credibility. obviously the guy will do anything for a dollar. Well, other than actually debate someone that knows what they're talking about. :-)
and then there's this other video where he was saying something like it's easier to have a conversation with a man because each individual knows that if the situation becomes heated , they have the option of exchanging blows. but you can't do that with women because you know you can't punch them in the face! something like that! who talks like that? do all right wing conservative Christians have that kind of mentality?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Problem is that under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society and they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they also get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things were produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. That's why the richest 1% now have almost as much wealth as the poorest 91%. The two richest people now have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
Under this system labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. That's because most of the things produce by workers belongs to someone else. That's why I labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours.
And of course socialism works. If it didn't work, capitalist countries wouldn't have to do everything they can to prevent people from achieving it. When workers own and control their own factories and businesses, then they get all of the wealth produced by their labour and they get to make the decisions. And that's how it should be.
Socialist companies are more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because when the wealth goes to the workers then they spend that into the economy. It creates more demand. The economy expands.
Capitalism, on the other hand, it is not conducive to a free-market of thriving economy because the goal is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible. That means the workers can actually afford all of the goods and services in circulation. The more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers half. That's why there's so much debt and why capitalism is so unstable. Eventually consumption is going to slow. And when it does, people get laid off. When people get laid off they can't consume in even more people get laid off. It's a domino effect.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. It's not about working hard. It's about owning Capital so you can live off of other people's labour. There are billionaires out there that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per second, 24 hours a day seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year. That's why they like to joke that if you can't make money while you're sleeping then you're actually going to have to work for a living. Where do you think that money comes from? It has to come from somebody's labour. Every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who doesn't work, somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. That's why people are still depended upon a 40 Hour Work Week even though it no longer takes anywhere near that amount of time to produce all the goods and services required by Society. By some estimates we shouldn't even be working 20 hours a week.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@rogerburn5132 , how can you say that capitalism is the best system? That doesn't make any sense. Sure, the billionaires spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on propaganda trying to convince people that it's the best system. We don't need capitalism in order to have a business, have production, aftermarket, have people selling and trading things. Capitalism allows the richest members of society to control most of the capital on Earth! That allows them to get most of the wealth produced by labour and to be able to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China. So why would you think capitalism is the best system? Also, it is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised. Most of the labour energy of workers ends up in the landfill while the majority of what's left over ends up in the pockets of the richest members of society. Do you have any idea how insane that is? And since you don't even need capitalism in order to have a business or production, exactly is your reason for supporting it? There are only two types of people that support capitalism. Those who have enough Capital where they don't have to work for a living. And those who have been indoctrinated by Propaganda. Here is part 1 of A six-part series on capitalist propaganda just since 19:45. I would recommend you watch all six parts: Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials."
~ .jaunimieciai.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism.
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are 7 defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current
disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their
life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded."
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
4
-
@rogerburn5132 , capitalism is not merely selling the product of your labour. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is only about 250 years old and didn't exist prior to the Scientific Revolution and enclosure movement. It was the Scientific Revolution and enclosure movement that actually made capitalism possible in the first place. The conversion to capitalism was extremely violent and bloody because people had to be forced off of the land and separated from the resources before they would tolerate and submit to wage slavery. Back then wage slavery was considered to be almost as bad as chattel slavery.
And no, the workers and consumers do not get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. That's a luxury that belongs mostly to the upper 1%.
In order for a company to be capitalist, not only does it have to be privately owned, they have to be capitalizing on other people's labour for profit. Otherwise, it's not capitalism. If merely selling the product of one's labour was capitalism, that would mean that capitalism existed prior to the Scientific Revolution, dating back 500 years. Markets and production existed long before capitalism. Plato and Aristotle absolutely despise the markets because they allocate scarce resources to the wealthiest members of society. Market started appearing shortly after the Egger cultural revolution 12 to 13 thousand years ago.
Capitalism is a completely new concept. It's the religion that says the richest members of society can basically own all the capital on the planet and then charge access and usage fees. Because they almost the capital, the vast majority of people on the planet have no choice other than to sell their labour for a fraction of what it's actually worth. That is modern slavery. That's what the enclosure movement was about. Putting people in a state of dependency so they would be forced to work in capitalist factories. And then, the capitalist class can then store the labour energy of other people in the form of money. They can do that in perpetuity. You see, there is a reason that John Locke came up with the concept of labour theory of ownership. Basically, if you don't work for it, you can't own it. People should only be entitled to the wealth they actually work for! But capitalism is the concept of being able to accumulate wealth without working. That is the main function of capitalism. The capitalist imperative is the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. It's the concept of owning for living rather than working for a living. That's why the owning class likes to make jokes like, don't work hard for your money, make your money work hard for you. Another favourite of theirs is, if you can't find a way to make money while you're sleeping, then you're actually going to have to get a job!
There are billionaires that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per second. Per second. Not per minute. And that's just from their Capital Holdings! Where do you think that money comes from? There was a guy that won the lottery a few months back. He has his money in a low-interest savings account. He's getting $6,000 a day just from the interest! LOL. And unless he spends more than $6,000 a day, he'll be making even more money with every passing minute. If you have to work 40 hours a week, well now you know why. If you want to know why labor-saving technology has introduced working hours, well that's why. Every time you get a blood test, buy toothpaste, wipe your rear end with toilet paper, you have to pay some billionaire for the privilege. And that individual will then pass that privilege onto his children and his children's children. His entire family line from this point never have to work. They can make thousands of dollars a day and live off of other people's labour. Basically, they're living in a world where basic Commodities are free. They can go into any restaurant and get served. They can go into any car dealership and buy a car that other people had to make.
Anyway, worker-owned companies are not capitalists. They are a form of Socialism. A form of collectivism. The company is collectively owned and democratically operated. The workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. And that is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because when the wealth is going to the workers they spend that into the economy. That creates more demand. The economy expands. The labour theory of ownership. If they produce $70,000 worth of wealth with their labour, they are now entitled to $70,000 worth of consumption. That's how a free-market works. That's what Adam Smith meant when you talked about free markets and the Invisible Hand. He do that economic democracy was necessary. Under capitalism Market is free for the capitalist owners.
You see, what are the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Capitalism is an anti economic system. You can't achieve equilibrium when you have production output expanding many times faster than income. It's just insane. That's the problem with silly religions. And the capitals class has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually disseminating Pro capitalist propaganda in order to keep people believing in that silly religion.
Can you imagine if you were a brown-eyed person and some blue-eyed individual came up to you and said that we should have a law where the blue-eyed people get to own most of the capital on the planet and thereby get most of the wealth produced by labour? What would you say to that? You should be entitled to most of the wealth produced by your labour. Not someone else. Pretty smart religion. Because when you control the capital you control everything else by default.
And of course there's a huge amount of corruption under capitalism. That's what happens when you have hierarchical systems of organization that are extremely undemocratic. Corruption is guaranteed. It's almost like saying that the combustion engine isn't responsible for exhaust.
Crony capitalism is just capitalism. And this is why https://youtu.be/L0Sr9lupjNA
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
No, it is not. Didn't you watch the video? Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. Workers own the product of their labour.
When rich people on the modes of production, they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions. That's why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population and why most things are made in China.
But when workers own their own means of production, then they get all of the wealth of their labour produces and they own the product of their labour. The main difference between a socialist company and a capitalist company is that the workers are doing their own work. They are not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit.
Because the workers get all of the wealth that their labour produces, that's more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because they spend that money and that creates more demand.
Having too many capitalist companies is actually bad for the economy because their goal is to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. The less workers get paid, the more profit there is. So, the more successful a capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have. That creates a situation where the workers will never be able to afford all of the goods and services that they put into circulation. So eventually the economy will contract when consumption slows down. When consumption slows down, people get laid off. When people get laid off, they can't consume! That results in more people being laid off.
A socialist economy is one where most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies. Such companies make workers and communities less dependant upon the government and capitalist corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods.
A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP comes from privately-owned companies that utilize wage labour for profit.
Please, watch the video again.
Capitalism is literally economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy. The workers have equal voting power. One worker equals one vote. At a capitalist company one share equals one vote. That means someone like Bill Gates can afford a million shares and therefore cannot vote most other members of the community. And of course the capitals vote to keep most of the money for themselves and to have most production in China.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
somehow you got that backwards. When people work at a capitalist company then they don't have any incentive. Capital companies try to get as much work out of their workers as possible while paying them as little as possible. But when workers on the company, then they get the full value of their labour. The more they produce, the better they produce, the more money they make. That's why it's possible for an assembly line worker to make $70,000 a year at a socially owned company but not at a capitalist company. At a capitalist company it doesn't matter if you produce $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product. It All Belongs to the owner. You've basically made that money for someone else. statistically speaking, when workers own their own company, they're happier, more creative, more efficient, more productive, they take less sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, Etc. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
4
-
4
-
No, that's how capitalism works.
Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. Workers own the product of their labour.
When rich people own the modes of production, they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions. That's why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population and why most things are made in China.
But when workers own their own means of production, then they get all of the wealth of their labour produces and they own the product of their labour. The main difference between a socialist company and a capitalist company is that the workers are doing their own work. They are not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit.
Because the workers get all of the wealth that their labour produces, that's more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because they spend that money and that creates more demand.
Having too many capitalist companies is actually bad for the economy because their goal is to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. The less workers get paid, the more profit there is. So, the more successful a capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have. That creates a situation where the workers will never be able to afford all of the goods and services that they put into circulation. So eventually the economy will contract when consumption slows down. When consumption slows down, people get laid off. When people get laid off, they can't consume! That results in more people being laid off.
A socialist economy is one where most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies. Such companies make workers and communities less dependant upon the government and capitalist corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods.
A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP comes from privately-owned companies that utilize wage labour for profit.
Please, watch the video again.
Capitalism is literally economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy. The workers have equal voting power. One worker equals one vote. At a capitalist company one share equals one vote. That means someone like Bill Gates can afford a million shares and therefore cannot vote most other members of the community. And of course the capitals vote to keep most of the money for themselves and to have most production in China.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@itzbebop , of course there's an obesity problem in the United States. Almost 50% of the country is overweight. You have a situation where so many people can't afford real food. They have to rely on cheap, processed food that's filled with chemicals and high-fructose corn syrup. Mr. Noodles, bread, Kraft dinner, processed chicken which is made up of mostly cartilage and other by-products held together with carcinogenic edible glue. That's why lifespan is decreasing for the poorest half of the population. Real food, safe non-processed food, is getting more and more expensive all the time.
The only reason there's a middle-class in the USA is because of the fight against capitalism. Now they're returning to the default position, like in the days of Rockefeller, JPMorgan, Carnegie, Etc. You think things are bad now, you haven't seen anything yet! The capitalist class is just getting started!
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017.
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
"In fact, we did practice something close to a pure capitalism in 1893. The result was economic depression and widespread unemployment, nine-year-old children working fourteen-hour days, typhoid and cholera epidemics in Philadelphia and other eastern cities, malnutrition and tuberculosis, and contaminated water and food supplies for the poor.
We had uninhibited environmental devastation and horrible work conditions, no pension programs or minimum wage, no occupational or consumer safety regulations, no prohibitions against child labor, and no Social Security, collective bargaining, or industrial unionism. We had unrestrained monopolies and trusts – and enormously high profits.
Conditions in the United States in 1893 were not unlike what they are today through much of the Third World. But for the capitalists of that era, these dismal conditions were not seen as evidence of the system's failure. For them, capitalism in the good old days was working quite well. Success was measured not by the quality of food, drinking water, housing, schools, transportation, and health care, but by the rate of capital accumulation.
The function of capitalism then and now has been to invest capital in order to accumulate more capital, and in that sense the system has performed superbly, for those who own and control it.
Today, the conservative goal is the Third Worldization of America, to reduce the U.S. working populace to a Third World condition, having people work harder and harder for less and less. This includes a return to the "free market,” free of environmental regulations, free of consumer protections, minimum wages, occupational safety, and labor unions, a market crowded with underemployed labor, so better to depress wages and widen profit margins.
Conservatives also seek the abolition of human services and other forms of public assistance that give people some buffer against free-market forces. Underemployment is a necessary condition for Third Worldization. Alan Budd, professor of economics at the London Business School candidly observed (Observer, June 21, 1992) that the Thatcher government's cuts in public spending were a cover to bash workers: ”Raising unemployment was a very desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. What was engineered was a crisis in capitalism, which recreated a reserve army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.” With underemployment and poverty come the return of turbeculosis, homelessness, and hunger, and a sharp increase in the number of people who work at nonunion, low-paying, dead-end poverty-level jobs.
The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization." ~ Michael Parenti
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@commonsense4257 , do you think if you have a Ph.D and have written books, that somehow makes it impossible for you to be an idiot, liar, and a fraud? You think that my not having written a book makes Peterson somehow less of an idiot? I don't know, I think your logic is flawed. But anyway, you might be able to argue whether or not he's an idiot, because that's subjective. However, in regards to being a liar and a fraud, that's not my opinion, that's a matter of public record. But yeah, Jordan Peterson does fall under the description of being an idiot! There's plenty of evidence to support that point of view. For example, saying that he he is utterly convinced that ancient civilizations had knowledge of DNA because of the drawings they made depicting intertwining snakes that are identical to the Helix found in DNA. or his claim that it's impossible for anyone to quit smoking without Supernatural intervention. And then there's all those times he's contradicted himself. And also wine and misrepresenting Bill C 16 in Canada! That was really despicable and underhanded behaviour on his part. At first I didn't know if he was just stupid or lying. but even after he was corrected by a lawyer that is an authority on such matters, he continued to lie and misrepresent the bill in order to undermine the gay and lesbian community that just wanted protection under the law because so many of them are dying from abuse and discrimination. These people want equal protection under the law. for some reason, that really bothers Peterson. Probably because he's a self-confessed Christian conservative!
Oh, and then there's his saying that he believes that anyone who makes the claim that Russia wasn't communist should be punched in the face! but Russia wasn't communist! is the guy such an idiot that he doesn't understand the difference between common ownership and state ownership? see, with him it's impossible to know whether he's just stupid or if he's lying. hard to tell when he's concerned
4
-
4
-
4
-
thanks to socialists Americans aren't making $10 a day like some third world countries. Thanks to socialists we have the 8 hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, the right to unionize, child labour laws, Etc. Before so many socialist fought and died resisting capitalism there were 9 year old children working 16 hours a day. Back in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan, one in 11 workers would die from exhaustion. Thousands would die everyday from unsafe working conditions and a lack of consumer safety standards. People like JPMorgan would hire private police to shoot anyone who tried to organize.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41;30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@therobbieunited , yes, it is very clear. It's clear that your statement has no relevance to the comment. The comment: " the mother statement regarding her son broke my heart and I can't stop crying for that child who was murdered" your statement, " oh yeah, but he had a gun." Again, your statement has no relevance to the comment. Also, the fact that the kid did have a gun doesn't negate the fact that he dropped the weapon, complied with the officer, and then was shot even though he had his empty hands in the air.
What would compel you to reply with such a comment? Does his having a gun in the beginning actually make it less heartbreaking? Does it make the mother's statement any less painful? No. It doesn't.
Is there something wrong with you? Yeah, you're probably just a troll. Yeah, you just felt compelled to make that ridiculous, insensitive statement.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@chrisvouzoukos389 , you didn't listen to the debate? Richard Wolff has started several successful businesses. He's extremely prolific.
There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. Bottom up, Democratic non-hierarchical systems work incredibly well. There's no shortage of hard empirical data. We know exactly how well they compare to capitalist Enterprises.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
thanks to socialists Americans aren't making $10 a day like some third world countries. Thanks to socialists we have the 8 hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, the right to unionize, child labour laws, Etc. Before so many socialist fought and died resisting capitalism there were 9 year old children working 16 hours a day. Back in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan, one in 11 workers would die from exhaustion. Thousands would die everyday from unsafe working conditions and a lack of consumer safety standards. People like JPMorgan would hire private police to shoot anyone who tried to organize.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41;30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikeg.8904 , yes, if you have no other choice other than to work for someone else in order to survive, then you'll have to make the products that they tell you to make. Everything you make belongs to your employer.
You see, it's easy for rich people to buy factories, railroads, electric companies, Etc. But most workers live from check to check. They can't afford to buy those things. Therefore they have to work for other people. however, if workers can get together as a group, that it makes it easier for them to purchase expensive equipment, warehouses, tools, Etc.
For example, there's a Cooperative in Spain where the workers now own their own Hospital, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. the workers are independent because they don't have to work for someone else. They get the full value of their labour. they don't need to sell their labour for a fraction of what it's worth to someone like Jeff Bezos so that he can become extremely rich.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mrpoliticalguy5602 , yeah, that's right! When you work for someone else, when you work at a capitalist Enterprise as an employee, your labour value is whatever the boss says it is. The thing is, you can never get 100% of your labour value in that situation. That's why so many people prefer to work at socialist companies.
At a socialist company you do get the full value of your labour. That's because the workers own the product of their labour. When you don't own the product of your labour, then you are a wage slave. Just like a human cow. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does the cow get twice the amount of milk? Does the cow get twice the amount of wealth? Does a cow get to work half as many hours for the same rate of income? No. Of course not. Because all of the milk belongs to the farmer. That's why labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours under capitalism. But when you do on the product of your labour, like the workers at a socialist company, then labor-saving technology is a blessing! If a machine replaces 500 people, you now have 500 people to share in the remaining workload.
For the first hundred years of capitalism everyone knew that wage labour was a form of slavery. Even the Republican party was against wage slavery right up until the very late 1800s. It was considered almost as bad as chattel slavery! In some ways it was actually worse. Back in the Antebellum South wage slaves were used for the dangerous jobs. Chattel slaves were too valuable. The wage slave gets to choose his employer. But he also has to feed himself, educate himself, provide his own housing, clothing, Etc. He's disposable. Modern slavery is a lot more productive and profitable because wage slaves are actually cheaper to maintain than chattel slaves. 😀 wage slaves that don't know that they are slaves, those are workers that have been domesticated. Edward Bernays proved that workers could be domesticated easier than most forms of livestock. Including horses.
3
-
3
-
Actually, the United States is turning into a third world country for a lot of its citizens. The only reason there's a middle class in the United States because of the fight against capitalism. More and more people are starting to retire in China!
As far as saying there wouldn't be as much wealth without these billionaires, that simply isn't true. Worker-owned companies are much more productive and Innovative compared to capitalist Enterprises. Statistically speaking, workers are happier, more creative, take fewer sick days, work harder, there's less incident of substance abuse, depression, suicide, Etc. And the list goes on. And, because the workers get paid the full value of their labour at worker-owned companies, that means the workers have greater purchasing power. For example, an Amazon was a worker-owned company, the lowest paid employee would be making something like $400,000 a year! Same with Apple. When workers have greater purchasing power, they can buy more stuff! That causes the economy to expand. But capitalist companies such as Amazon, because they pay workers so little, the economy ends up Contracting because there's more goods and services in circulation than people can actually afford.
For example, in the United States there is a socially owned bread factory. The assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. That's because they own the product of their labour. A worker on the assembly line at Amazon, they produce well over $100,000 a year with their labour. If labor-saving Technologies introduced, workers end up getting laid off because the market is already saturated. Those workers then have to compete with one another for the remaining jobs. That's one of the reasons why labour is so cheap under the capitalist system.
For a long time now we've had the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. Under a socialist society we probably only be working three or four hours a week by now. That's because when workers own the product of their labour, when they own their own Factory or business, labor-saving technology serves to reduce working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. Not just the workers but for the entire Community because there's more demand greater purchasing power.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BinanceUSD , the capital can come from a variety of areas. There are Cooperative banks that lend money to people for the purpose of starting a cooperative. There's a region in Spain where 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies. One of the reasons is that it's easier for these people to get access to Capital. When unemployed people are collecting unemployment insurance, if 10 or more of them get together for the purpose of starting a Cooperative, they can get all of their insurance money upfront.
It's easier for groups of people to get the capital they require to start a business compared to a solitary individual. It's easy for billionaires to buy up grocery stores, railroads, electric companies, Etc. Other people have no other choice other than to do it collectively. If you have the money and the means, it's probably better to buy your own home. Other people get together and form Cooperative housing. At least that way when you pay rent you're only paying for the cost of the building and its maintenance rather than some landlords lifestyle. The money that would be going to a landlord, you get to keep that and put it to word buying your own home.
Yeah, technically a plumber that owns his own business and is doing his own work, he's not a capitalist. A capitalist company is one that is privately owned and utilizes wage labour for profit. Sometimes you just have one individual operating a business. Sometimes you have an entire family. The key difference is these individuals are doing their own work and on the product of their labour.
Yeah, owning a business can be risky. There's always the potential of bankruptcy. But whether you're dealing with a capitalist company or a worker-owned company, people are protected by a limited liability. So yeah, you might lose your business and the investment you put into it, but you don't have to worry about losing your shirt or home.
Here are two successful worker-owned companies in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ basically, it's communism at the micro-level. The workers own all of the tools and capital equally.
Here is an example of community ownership in the United States. https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
this is why I only pay $20 a month for electricity on average during the coldest winter months. I'm paying for electricity at cost. I'm just paying for the initial investment of the utility, its maintenance and the labour that goes into producing the electricity.
The workers make close to 100,000 a year, getting the full value of their labour.
If the utility was privately owned, the workers wouldn't be able to get the full value of their labour. The less they get paid, the more profit there is for the owner. And I wouldn't be getting the electricity at cost. I would still have to pay for the cost of the factory, the workers, maintenance, but on top of all of that, I would also have to pay some private individual like Donald Trump extra money for nothing! And that's what capitalism is all about. When it comes to most products, you can't buy toothpaste, shoelaces, a home, car, without having to pay extra money to some owner.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dore 2024!
Yes, I know, it’s always premature to discuss the next presidential contest. But I’ll make my pick for 2024 known now: Jimmy Dore.
For those who dismiss a comedian running for the highest office, I say, why not? Dick Gregory ran for president in 1968 as a write-in candidate for the Freedom and Peace Party. The comedian and civil rights activist used his run to energize the anti-war movement, draw attention to the needs of the working class and the harassment many people of color still faced following the passage of numerous civil rights bills.
Gregory, although he only accumulated close to 50,000 votes, frightened the Nixon administration with his campaign. Personnel in the Nixon White House feared Gregory may become the “black messiah” J. Edgar Hoover long warned about. Shortly after that warning, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Fred Hampton were gunned down. Fearful of his profile and his building of a true rainbow coalition, Gregory was placed on Nixon’s dreaded enemies list.
I sincerely believe a Dore presidential campaign could have the same effect. It could empower various social movements and make the oligarchs and their two corporate/puppet parties quake in their boots. Dore could start the race with genuine grassroots support and funding from the people.
Dore has expressed both interest and some hesitancy. But if history is any guide, I say he shouldn’t be worried. Run, Jimmy! Scare the oligarchs and empower the people!
Dore 2024!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michelem7786 , well first of all to say that communism and socialism are the most course of ideologies , that's simply not true. capitalist Nations have been far more coercive and responsible for far more deaths than communism, fascism, and socialism combined.
Capitalism killed 1.8 billion + people, that's not too far off the mark--especially if we include the deaths resulting from the centrally regulated state-capitalist economies of the Leninist states out there (often fraudulently referred to as "socialist" or "communist"). It looks more like 1,86 billion--and that's not including all the work-related deaths worldwide, which easily exceed many of the wars we have suffered.
Now, of course, the estimated casualty numbers depend on how far back in history we go (we can go back as far as the rise of colonial capitalism--also called mercantilism--during the 1500s and 1600s. And, sadly, the further back we go, the harder it is to find credible data).
But we can try by looking at official estimates of casualties of key events over the decades and centuries. So here goes:
United States Imperialism:
Hurricane Katrina (deliberate faulty construction) 1,836
NATO Intervention in Libya 2011 15,000
Tamils killed by US backed Sri Lankan Gov. 30,000
US Revolutionary War 35,700 (If Russa removes a Monarch its bad right?)
Spanish-American War 100,000
US Made Famine in Bangladesh 1974 100,000
NATO Intervention in Libya 100,000
Guatemala 300,000
US Bombing of Yugoslavia 300,000
Iraq (US Selling Poison Gas to Saddam) 400,000
Iraq (Desert Storm) 500,000
US Bombing Iraq Water Supply in 1991 500,000
Invasion of the Philippines 650,000
US Civil War 700,000
US Concentration Camps of Germans 1,000,000
US imposed sanctions on Iraq 1,000,000
Afghanistan (War on Terrorism) 1,200,000
US Backed Dictator General Suharto 1,200,000
Iraq (War on Terrorism) 1,300,000
1898 American War vs Philippine 3,000,000
US Intervention in the Congo 5,000,000
US Aggression on Latin America 6,000,000
Vietnam War* (including Cambodia & Laos) 10,000,000
Korean War* 10,000,000
Native American Genocide 114,000,000
African Slave Trade 150,000,000
* both wars caused by the us
Japanese Imperialism:
Japanese Occupation of East Timor 70,000
Japanese Bombing of China 71,105
Japanese Massacre of Singapore 100,000
Japanese Germ Warfare in China 200,000
Japanese Democides 5,964,000
British Imperialism:
Second Boer War 75,000
Irish Potato Famine 1,500,000
The Bengal Famine of 1943 10,000,000
British Occupation of India 20,000,000
Famine in Held British India 30,000,000
Misc. nations:
Massacre of the Paris Commune 20,000
Dutch East Indies 25,000
Somali Child Famine Deaths 29,000
228 Massacre 30,000
French Madagascar 80,000
Indonesian Anti-Communist Purges 1965-1966 1,000,000
Indonesian East Timor invasion 1975 5,000,000
Philippine Insurrection 220,000
Franco Regime 300,000
Benito Mussolini regime 300,000
Rebelling Shia Killed by Saddam 300,000
Nanking Massacre 300,000
Spanish Civil War 400,000
Mussolini’s Ethiopia 700,000
Palestinians Killed by Israel 1947-2002 826,626
Nigerian Civil War 1,000,000
Somalia 1,000,000
Iraq-Iran War 1,000,000
Rawandan Genocide 1,000,000
Belgian Congo Colonization 10,000,000
Tsarist Russia (1800s only) 1,066,000
First Indochina 1946-1954 1,750,000
Cambodia Khmer Rouge 2,035,000
Cambodia Pol Pot 3,200,000
South African Apartheid 3,500,000
Congo 1886-1908 8,000,000
Nazi Holocaust 12,000,000
Eastern Europe/COMECON/Warsaw Pact 1946-1991 1,200,000
Soviet-era Capitalism (excluding Stalin era) 11,000,000
Soviet Gulag/concentration/POW camps 2,500,000
Post-Soviet Capitalism in Russia 1,500,000
Stalinist Famine of 1932-33 7,000,000
Stalinist Famine of 1947-39 7,000,000
Stalinist purges-persecution 1928-53 1,200,000
Mao Ze Dong "Great Leap" 1958-63 20,000,000
Post-1949 China deaths (excluding Great Leap) 5,000,000
Chiang Kai Shek regime (China) 7,000,000
Pol Pot regime (Cambodia) 3,000,000
World War One 16,500,000
World War Two 72,000,000
General Disasters by Capitalism:
Hamburg Cholera Outbreak 1892 10,000
Union Carbide Bophal Disaster 15,000
Industrial Revolution Kids & Adults USA 100,000
Industrial Revolution Kids & Adults Global 212,000,000
Chetnik Collaboration & Genocide 100,000
Herero and Namaqua Genocide 110,000
Burma-Siam Railroad Construction 116,000
Albanian Genocide 270,000
Fascist Independent State of Croatia 900,000
Armenian Genocide 1,500,000
Great Depression (America and Europe) 12,000,000
Children Killed by Preventable Diseases Since 9/11 208,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger 2001-2008 9/11 235,000,000
Children Died from Hunger 2009 5,256,000
Children Died from Hunger 2010 6,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger during the 1990s 100,000,000
Capitalist Policy in India 1947 – 1990 120,000,000
Ciggarette Related Deaths Worldwide (1960 – 2011) 306,000,000
IMF-related casualties since 1950 140,000,000
https://i.redd.it/jz1kv95kuh011.gif
https://theconversation.com/colonialism-was-a-disaster-and-the-facts-prove-it-84496
https://www.ranker.com/list/worst-colonial-european-regimes/melissa-sartore
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/may/13/features11.g22
https://chomsky.info/199910__/
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
http://www.flashpoints.info/iss.../Genocide/Genocide_htm.htm
http://tinyurl.com/jqgk9kp
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#America
http://www.orwelltoday.com/redriding.shtml
http://www.whale.to/b/mullins41.html
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/State_capitalism
http://www.scribd.com/.../American-Corporations-and-Hitler
http://www.iahushua.com/WOI/us_nazis.htm
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t
https://prezi.com/7mdtynonwovn/famous-murders-murderers-of-the-industrial-revolution/
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/britain-1700-to-1900/industrial-revolution/diseases-in-industrial-cities-in-the-industrial-revolution/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25780760
3
-
3
-
@michelem7786 , third, " just do it" is not an argument. The argument is that worker-owned and Community owned companies and factories are better for workers and the economy. The argument is not whether a person is legally entitled to start a business. Of course they are, either individually or collectively. The problem is, most people are not in a position to just do it. There are many barriers. most people are in an extreme state of dependency. They live from Check to Check and have huge amounts of debt. Something like 90% of the American population can no longer afford a family on a single income. They can't even afford a $400 emergency. people are going bankrupt all the time just from an unexpected medical bill or other emergency. So no, people just can't do it. Hard enough for people in debt to be able to borrow money for something such as a home or a car, which gives the bank something to repossess if payments are not made. you think a bank is going to lend money to someone in debt for the purpose of starting something as risky as a business in this precarious economic environment?
if people were not in the state of dependency, capitalism would cease to exist. capitalist companies are dependant upon people not being able to extricate themselves from their states of dependency.
for example, there's a socially on bread factory in the United States were assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. that's because the workers own the product of their labour. however, when workers do not own the product of their labour, it doesn't matter how much they produce. It doesn't matter if they produce $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product. It All Belongs to someone else. workers at companies such as Amazon and Walmart produce far more wealth with their labour, but they get paid wages are so low they can barely pay their bills. So obviously if workers had the choice of getting the full value of their labour, they're not going to go work at a company such as Walmart or Amazon.
capitalist companies require desperate workers. That's why capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. That's why the conversion to capitalism was extremely violent and bloody. people fought against the conversion to capitalism because back then everyone recognized wage slavery to be another form of slavery, not much better than chattel slavery and in some cases even worse. that's not my opinion, that's a matter of public record.
and what do you think is going to be better for the economy? A worker that makes $70,000 a year or a worker making minimum wage at a company such as Walmart or Amazon?
here's some labour history:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
"The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence."
when you work as an employee, the boss tells you when you work, how hard you have to work, Etc. they can cut your wages, your working hours, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
3
-
@michelem7786 , fourth, will you see that no one wants to do it, that is not correct. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. And because they have existed for such a long time, we know exactly how well they compare to capitalist Enterprises. Statistically speaking, not only are these companies more durable, productive, the workers are happier, more creative, more efficient, take less sick days, there's listen to this of mental illness, suicide, depression, Etc. there is no shortage of hard empirical data to look at.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
3
-
@michelem7786 , seventh, you wanted me to give you one example other than Mondragon? There are simply too many examples to even mention. We're talking hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces. There are also many different types of institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lobotomizedamericans , Michael Parenti once said that wealth was one of the worst addictions.
Yeah, I stopped reading James's comments a long time ago. I see the first line or two, but as you point out, there's no need to expand the comment because you know everything he's going to say is complete nonsense. And he lies. And he's a disgusting hypocrite. He will criticize someone up and down for something they didn't do, and then, five minutes later, he'll go and do the exact same thing himself! He basically accuses other people of all the things he does. He says that he hates governments but yet he behaves just like the American government. Just lie, doesn't matter if you're caught, doesn't matter what the evidence is, just lie anyway. And always accuse the other side of evils that you do or are planning to do. 😀
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Figures-us9wt , of course it's capitalism! It's just a later stage of capitalism. Capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. Under the capitalist system most of the capitalist owned by the richest members of society. That's why they get most of the wealth produced by Labour and why they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things reproduce, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. Capitalism is literally economic feudalism.
The only reason we have a middle class today is because of the fight against capitalism. Look at capitalism back in the days of JPMorgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Etc. You had nine-year-old children working eighteen hours a day! There were no child labour laws, no consumer safety laws, no labour laws, most people had to work eighteen hours a day seven days a week, Etc.
The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. There's no rule against utilizing every single tool at your disposal in order to achieve such ends. So of course the rich people are going to utilize the state and fractional Reserve banking. Just like capitalist utilized slaves and child labour. There's nothing anti-capitalist about that.
Capitalism is about owning for a living. Since the goal of capitalism is to eliminate barriers to profit, one could literally say that the goal of capitalism is to destroy democracy.
Socialism is economic democracy. It is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. Capitalism is economic feudalism. The goal is to accumulate as much Capital as possible. Don't work hard for your money, make your money work hard for you. In other words, it's the economic system of parasites.
Of course we have capitalism today. Capitalism is just turning to its default position after the working-class achieve so many victories.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
what are you talkin about? When workers own their own company, they are more productive. Statistically speaking, not only are they more productive, they're a lot happier, they take less sick days, they're more creative, more motivated, there's less incidence of mental illness, substance abuse, Etc.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
VSKM 1997 , you think he's doing more harm than good? How? By wanting to expand the Cooperative sector? By pointing out that under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society and therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They also get to make most of the decisions regarding what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That is economic feudalism. That's why people like Milton Friedman are paid to push privatization propaganda. As soon as something is privatized, schools, hospitals, electric companies, railroads, apartment buildings,, they quickly get bought up by the rich. They can then make massive amounts of money at the expense of the working class. However, when workers own their own capital, then they can keep all of the walls produced by their labour and they can make the important decisions.
Have you ever read Milton Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom? privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending—the freemarket trinity.
3
-
worker-owned companies vs. Capitalist Enterprises https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
worker cooperatives can go out of business just like any company. I'm sure layoffs happen. But less likely to happen compared to a capitalist Enterprise. statistically speaking worker cooperatives are more efficient, more durable, more Innovative, Etc. Also workers are happier, more creative, more efficient, they work harder, they take less sick days, there's less suicide, substance abuse, alcoholism, Etc.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
not at all. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions when it comes to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. Economic feudalism. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China.
when workers own and control their own companies in factories, then they get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces and they get to be their own boss.
Capitalist company's benefit capitalists. Worker-owned companies benefit workers and communities.
Socialism is more conducive to free markets and thriving economies because wages are commensurate with production output. therefore it doesn't violate the economic principle of achieving equilibrium between supply and demand. Capitalism maximizes the disparity between supply and demand because they do everything they can to keep wages as little as possible while maximizing production output. you can't have production output increasing at a faster rate than income, because then people won't be able to afford the goods and services they are producing! that's why there's so much debt under the capitalist system. jobs are tied to consumption. if consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. and the unemployed people have to compete with one another for the remaining jobs. That drives the value of Labor down even further, increasing the disparity between supply and demand to an even greater degree.
that's why working hours never decrease under capitalism even though labor-saving technology has more than tripled production output since 1950 while cutting the need for labour in half. just like with animal livestock, workers are given just enough to survive. If it wasn't for people fighting against capitalism, we would still be working 18 hours a day 7 days a week along with 9 year old children.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@llhll8264 , I don't know why you would think capitalism is the best system. A system that allows the richest members of society to own most of the capital on the planet. Those that own the capital get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. What's the consequence? The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. And most things are made in China.
Capitalism is not conducive to free markets are thriving economies. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. But the goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. Profit is maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. So of course that's going to create an environment where workers producing more things they can actually afford to buy. But if consumption slows down, people get laid off. People to get laid off can't consume. You think that's good economic system?
Capitalism is a religion. It's not about working for a living. It's about accumulating capital for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour and resources without having to work. The only problem is, the more successful a capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have. If you want the economy to expand, you have to increase purchasing power. Your overall Central goal can't be to decrease it. So technically speaking, capitalism is an anti economic system. It's basically economic feudalism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jamesolivito4374 , morality is a problem for capitalism, not socialism. Socialism is a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical system of organization. When workers own and control their own means of production and have equal voting power, corruption is almost impossible. If you were to try to be greedy or dishonest, your fellow workers wouldn't think too kindly of you. And since worker-owned companies are tied to the community, if workers decided to cut safety standards or use harmful ingredients in their products, the community wouldn't look too favourably on them either. Individuals are not going to poison their own environment and the children of their neighbours.
Look at all the Socialist companies in the United States. What does the data show? Not only do you not have to worry about corruption or greed or destruction of the environment, workers are happier, more efficient, more Innovative, there's less than two days of mental illness, workers take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, Etc.
You see, bottom-up systems of organization are not prone to corruption the way top down systems are.
Capitalism guarantees corruption! In fact, people don't do everything they can to compete, then they're more corrupt competitors will end up dominating market shares.
Capitalism is prone to corruption because those are the top have extreme power over those underneath. Capitalism allows the richest members of society to own most of the capital. That gives them massive power over workers and government. Those who own most of the capital get most of the wealth produced by labour. That's why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population.
When workers own and control their own means of production democratically, you have most things being made at home and most of the wealth going to the workers who spend that money into the economy.
When rich people control the Capital, they get most of the wealth produced by labour and most things end up being made in China.
If you're worried about greed and morality, then socialism the ideal system. Capitalism is definitely not the system you want to have. You can't give massive control over the world, the economy and the government to a small Rich minority. Research has shown that a lot of these extremely wealthy capitalists are actually sociopaths. As it turns out, the less empathy a person has the more likely they are to be successful at outcompeting their competitors. You end up with the concentration of sociopaths at the top of the Apex because it's precisely those types of individuals that are mostly attracted to power and wealth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That's why Richard Wolff is not advocating for the type of Socialism or communism associated with Russia.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally owned electric coops. Community is where the word communist comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
• How about the Ocean Spray cranberry cooperative? Do those workers make minimum wage? 2000 employees produce roughly one and a half billion dollars annually. So how much do you think the workers get paid?
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
• how about these Cooperative owners in Argentina? Do you think they're making more or less money now that they are the actual owners? Do you think the business is actually doing better or worse now that the workers actually own the company and operated democratically? https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
• when you pay your electric bill, when you buy a home, when you buy a condo, Etc, do you want to be buying these things at cost! Or do you want to be putting money into other the pocket of middlemen that aren't actually doing any work or contributing anything? https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
• do you think these workers are making minimum wage? Or are they making a living wage? doesn't sound like they're enjoying being able to actually share in the decision-making process? Does it sound like they are happier having more freedom and control, along with getting paid more? https://youtu.be/8vJDhKMrncw
• these Cooperative is definitely provide more equality, freedom and prosperity compared to capitalist Enterprises. Along with that they have acceptance, the advantage pooling their resources for their families and community, autonomy & Independence (allowed to be unique, it's actually valued instead of discouraged), teaching and education are part of the job -not just simply producing like a Mindless robot!, support, real and genuine concern for your fellow workers and community, sustainable development, etc, etc. https://youtu.be/NO-8iI7GW70
• Evergreen cooperatives! One of the reasons they exist is because it's impossible have a quality life when only making minimum wage. They provide people with a living wage. https://youtu.be/4zU8_ofpPyQ
• even in poor countries during the financial crisis, the workers are still making a living wage, often much more than their American counterparts. https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8
3
-
of course he's not crooked. I don't know what would make you think such a thing. His argument is very simple and straightforward. Under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's one of the reasons why wages are so low and why most things are made in China. It's economic feudalism.
And what he says a capital Stoner is like a king, he simply means that the owner is the one that gets to make all the decisions, gets most of the wealth, Etc. They decide when the employee works, when they don't work, how much they get paid, they can cut their hours, replace them with their best friend, they can even tell them when and how long they get to go to the washroom. The boss gets to dictate and the workers have to follow orders, or they get fired or penalized. So yeah, and that sense capitalist owners are like little Kings.
anyway, in regards to automatic systems of organization. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. One worker equals one vote. once again Richard wolf is correct. Those types of workplaces tend to be more efficient, more productive, workers are happier, make more money, there's less incidence of mental illness, workers taking sick days, Etc. there is no shortage of hard empirical data to go by. We know exactly how Democratic workplaces compared to capitalist, top-down undemocratic hierarchical systems.
here is a basic summarization of his argument. https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sarahgrant8860 , you don't need capitalism in order to have a business, have money, have trade with people, Etc. These things existed long before capitalism. Technically speaking, capitalism is an anti economic system. It's not conducive to free markets, it's actually antithetical! Capitalism is very similar to feudalism. It's a dictatorship. Instead of the nobility controlling everything, you have the richest members of society controlling the wealth producing Technologies and resources. It's extremely undemocratic. Instead of one worker equalling one vote, one share equals one vote. So if you can only afford one share, and someone such as Bill Gates can afford 1 million shares, guess who wins? That's why if mr. Gates wants to move your resources and means of production to China, he can do so. What do you think happened in Flint Michigan? Do you think the workers voted have their own water supply polluted? you think they voted to have their safety standards cut!?
the people that produce the wealth should own and control that wealth. Simple. All wealth comes from mixing labour with capital. blaber includes mental and physical efforts. Capitalists are nothing more than parasites.
3
-
3
-
@Scott Covert , one of the central goals is to achieve equilibrium. That's one example of how capitalism is an anti economic system. how can you achieve equilibrium under the capitalist system when the parasite extract more than he contributes? See, there's no point in owning a Slave if you don't get more out of him than what you put in.
Economics comes from the word economy. Economy is about the absence of waste. Capitalism is dependant upon waste and growth. another example how capitalism is an anti economic system. How can you have continuous expansion on a finite planet? That's why I capitalism necessitates imperialism.
in order to achieve equilibrium the capitalist system needs schemes, such as fractional Reserve banking and credit cards! It also requires you to throw most of your labour energy in the garbage! :-) nothing like working 40 hours a week to support parasites and keep the landfills full.
For example. If you work in a TV factory you might help produce a thousand TVs a day. But at the end of the day you won't earn enough to even purchase one TV. So if workers are constantly producing more than they can afford to consume, how do we maintain jobs through consumption? then, to make matter even worse, what happens if technology doubles the output of those TVs? Now two thousand TV are being produced in the same amount of time with the same number of workers! The market was already saturated with one thousand TVs. Now you have two thousand! Do you fire have of your labor force?
Under socialism this situation would be a good thing. Instead of firing half the workers, you now have twice as many workers to share in the remaining work load! Therefore you only have to work 4 hours a day instead of 8.
But under capitalism half the workers get fired, where they have to compete for the ever decreasing jobs that are available. That competition drives down the value of labor and purchasing power even further. And then when people borrow money, more purchasing power is lost because there is interest. That's why we still have the forty hour work week. Of course a debt and consumption based system is going to be prone to recessions.
Another example. It wasn't too long that Bill Gates bought the Canadian Railway. His wealth went from 80 to 90 billion dollars as a result. that's 10 billion dollars that used to go to Canadian workers. they would in turn spend that money into their communities. one person's paycheck is another person's expenditure. Bill Gates then took that money that used to go to workers and used it to buy parking lots at Canadian hospitals and Labs where people get their blood tested. To compensate for the loss of purchasing power, people end up borrowing money from Bill Gates! and of course he's more than happy to lend their own money back to them.
every time you get a blood test, wipe your rear end with toilet paper, do you really want to have to be paying extortion fees to Bill Gates? would you rather give your money to your fellow workers so they can spend it into the economy.
can you pick a million apples a day? Can you eat a million calories a day? do you really think your labour could produce a million dollars in one day? there are billionaires out there making two million dollars an hour just from their Capital Holdings. anytime you extract more than you contribute, it comes at the expense of someone else. Every time a dollar goes to a non producer, somewhere else you have a producer who worked for a dollar that he doesn't get.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deason2365 , no, what you just described is capitalism. Under capitalism the rich people own most of the capital and thus control both the economy and the government. Under the capitalist system the government represents the owning class.
Don't you understand that Richard Wolff is not a state socialist? How many times does he have to mention set the problem with hierarchical systems is that they're prone to corruption because those at the top have power over those underneath. That's why he's an advocate of economic democracy where the workers have direct ownership of their own factories and businesses. That type of socialism is bottom-up, democratic and non-hierarchical. It doesn't have anything to do with the government or the military. Your comment makes absolutely no sense at all. When you increase the number of worker-owned companies and factories, that decentralizes power. That makes workers and communities less depended upon the government, not more. It also makes workers and communities less dependant upon capitalist corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods.
You see, when the workers own their own Capital, businesses and factories, then they get the wealth produced by their labour. When capitalists own those things, then they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They then spend that money on trips to outer space, buying politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, accountants, Etc. When that money goes to the workers, they spend it into the economy, and that causes the economy to expand because there's more demand for things that just pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. Economics 101.
You see, at a socialist company the workers get 100% of the wealth produced by their labour. That creates more demand and the economy expands. But the goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Some workers to not get anywhere near 100% of their labour value because if they did, there would be zero profit for the owners. The more successful capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have. So technically speaking, capitalism is an anti economic system. Socialism is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy where the government has less control and power over the people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisvouzoukos389 , dude, you talk about sophistry but what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Even if Marxism was a about a centrally planned economy, which it's not, what does that have to do with Richard Wolff position? Richard Wolff is not an advocate of planned economies. He's not talking about planned economies. He's talking about modes of production. Recode even know what the argument is and you're talking about sophistry? 😀
Richard Wolff argument is very simple. Under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They also get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. However, when workers own their own businesses and factories, then they get to be their own boss and they get to keep all of the well that their labour produces. Do you understand? That's not sophistry, that's just common sense and should be self-evident.
here's a video you might find of interest. it covers the 10 main misconceptions about Marxism. Marxism is an analytical tool. 99% of what Marx wrote had to do with analyzing capitalism. He wasn't much interested in coming up with answers problems.
A Marxist response to Jordan Peterson https://youtu.be/42eJu22scY8
2
-
@chrisvouzoukos389 , who said anything about having a right to someone else's labour? What are you talkin about? No one said anything about having a right to someone else's stuff. You just can't invent things and then insert them.
Yeah, a person is legally entitled to open a business, either individually or collectively. What does that have to do with the argument? Like I already said, there's hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States. So why are you telling people to start them? Again, you talk about sophistry but you're not making any sense. I will mention again, for the third time, the argument is not about whether someone is legally entitled to start a business, the argument is that worker-owned companies are better for workers and communities compared to capitalist Enterprises. How can this possibly be too complicated for you to understand?
Richard Wolff is pointing out that if you don't want to waste many years of your life making money for other people, if you want to get 100% of the value from your labour, if you don't want to have a boss, someone who has authority over you dictating to you, then you either have to start your own business or you have to join/start a cooperative. A lot of times people are not in the position to be able to start their own company because they don't have the resources. Getting together with a group of people is a good alternative. That's what he's pointing out. just like owning your own home would obviously be preferable, but if you can't own your own home, then Cooperative housing might be a better alternative than paying high rent to some landlord. Why fund someone else's lifestyle When you can be putting that money into your own pocket. the argument isn't that difficult. It's very very simple and very straightforward.
also, since you brought it up, saying that when someone works for someone else that it's always voluntary, that's not correct. most people have no choice but to sell their labour in order to survive. Most people are not in a position to be able to change jobs. In the United States there are millions of people working in horrible conditions. huge number of people commit suicide every day as a result of being stuck in an intolerable environment. Most people live from Check to Check and can't even afford a family on a single income. you want to talk about sophistry, saying that employment is a voluntary Exchange between an employer and employee, that's just libertarian claptrap. It's ridiculous
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's very simple. Capitalism is economic feudalism. Under this system most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members of society. So not only do they get most of the wealth produced by labour, they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc.
And what is the consequence? Most things are made in China and most people can no longer afford a family on a single income. Before the pandemic there are 40 million Americans depended upon food stamps in order to survive. That's more people than the entire population of Canada. And that's because with every passing day more and more of the GDP ends up going to the owners of capital rather than the actual citizens and workers. That has resulted in the richest 1% owning almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as a poorest half of the American population. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population!
However, if we had most of our GDP coming from worker-owned companies and factories, then most things would be produced at home rather than a third world country. Most of the wealth would flow to the workers who would spend that money into the economy. That's why socialism is actually more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. Labor-saving technology would serve to reduce working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. That would also make it easier for people to start their own small businesses because the be more demand for coffee, Pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
For example, there's a socially own bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. That's because they own the product of their labour. How much does a an assembly line worker make at Walmart or Amazon? 20000? Which workers are going to create more demand in the economy? Obviously it's the people making 70,000 a year.
Worker-owned companies are tied to the community. They make workers and communities less dependant upon the government and exploitive of capitalist corporations.. They decentralize power.
And because there's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies around the world, because we have data going back almost 100 years, we know exactly how well they compare and measure up to capitalist modes of production. Not only are workers more efficient, more creative, they also have better mental help. There's less incidence of depression, substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, Etc.
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism is actually an anti economic system. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when the main goal is to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible? So, literally, the more successful the capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have! One of the reasons why there's so much debt. It should be obvious that it's not viable to have an economic system where production output increases at a faster rate than income. Especially when jobs are tied to consumption. And of course pumping credit into the system will keep people consuming temporarily, but ultimately the interest attached will serve to reduce purchasing power even further in the future. People call that economics?
Economics comes from the word economy, the absence of waste. But capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised. Ninety-nine percent of the materials we extract from nature for production end up in the landfill after only six months! 99%! We should have been able to cut working hours and half a long time ago. But because capitalism drives wages down work, people remain depended upon a 40 Hour Work Week even though it's no longer necessary to work that long to produce all of the goods and services required by Society. That's also why planned obsolescence isn't necessary feature of the capitalist system, along with fractional Reserve banking.
2
-
@bluessoul1286 , what does any of that have to do with the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about? What does that have to do with the fact that worker-owned companies and factories are better for workers?
And do you have any idea what the United States was like before the labour movement? Back in the days of Rockefeller, JPMorgan, Carnegie, Etc? It was hell on Earth! You had nine-year-old children working 17 hours a day, 7 days a week! Laborers were often worked to death. Thousands of people would die everyday because there were no consumer safety standards, no labour laws, Etc. Do you have any idea how many people had to fight and die in order to achieve the eight-hour day, the five-day work week?
"In fact, we did practice something close to a pure capitalism in 1893. The result was economic depression and widespread unemployment, nine-year-old children working fourteen-hour days, typhoid and cholera epidemics in Philadelphia and other eastern cities, malnutrition and tuberculosis, and contaminated water and food supplies for the poor.
We had uninhibited environmental devastation and horrible work conditions, no pension programs or minimum wage, no occupational or consumer safety regulations, no prohibitions against child labor, and no Social Security, collective bargaining, or industrial unionism. We had unrestrained monopolies and trusts – and enormously high profits.
Conditions in the United States in 1893 were not unlike what they are today through much of the Third World. But for the capitalists of that era, these dismal conditions were not seen as evidence of the system's failure. For them, capitalism in the good old days was working quite well. Success was measured not by the quality of food, drinking water, housing, schools, transportation, and health care, but by the rate of capital accumulation.
The function of capitalism then and now has been to invest capital in order to accumulate more capital, and in that sense the system has performed superbly, for those who own and control it.
Today, the conservative goal is the Third Worldization of America, to reduce the U.S. working populace to a Third World condition, having people work harder and harder for less and less. This includes a return to the "free market,” free of environmental regulations, free of consumer protections, minimum wages, occupational safety, and labor unions, a market crowded with underemployed labor, so better to depress wages and widen profit margins.
Conservatives also seek the abolition of human services and other forms of public assistance that give people some buffer against free-market forces. Underemployment is a necessary condition for Third Worldization. Alan Budd, professor of economics at the London Business School candidly observed (Observer, June 21, 1992) that the Thatcher government's cuts in public spending were a cover to bash workers: ”Raising unemployment was a very desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. What was engineered was a crisis in capitalism, which recreated a reserve army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.” With underemployment and poverty come the return of turbeculosis, homelessness, and hunger, and a sharp increase in the number of people who work at nonunion, low-paying, dead-end poverty-level jobs.
The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization."
~ Michael Parenti
2
-
2
-
@bluessoul1286 of course it works! We know it works because there's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world. There's a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker-owned company. Of course it would be possible to have an economy where most of the goods and services are produced by democratic workplaces.
For you to be comparing First World countries, countries such as Canada, United States, comparing those countries to third world countries or countries with extremely different cultures such as China or Venezuela, that's simply doesn't make any sense. Their culture is different and their governments are structured differently. Most of the problems that happened in those countries were the results of economic imperialism or Invasion from countries such as the United States and Britain. Or, they were failures as a result of the way the government was structured. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with capitalism or socialism. If you have unaccountable dictatorships and remove checks and balances in the government, of course there's going to be problems. But it's a moot point because Richard Wolff is not talking about State socialism. There are two main types of socialism. You can have indirect ownership through the government, just like you can have representative democracy which is indirect, or you can have direct ownership by communities and workers. State socialism came about at a much later date in history.
If most of the GDP comes from worker-owned companies, then most of the wealth would be going to the workers. That's more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because when workers have money they spend it. Also, that would create a situation where most things will be made in the home country rather than someplace like China.
You're not making any argument for why it wouldn't work. You're just talking about other countries, cultures. Also, thanks to Science and labor-saving Technology, the world we live in today is very different than 150 years ago.
2
-
2
-
@jeremysweeney2241 , what do you mean there's nothing stopping someone from starting a Cooperative or leaving their job? 99% of the jobs available are produced by capitals corporations. How can 7 billion people switch to the 1% alternative? 44% of Americans with health insurance can't even afford a trip to the doctor! You think they can get the millions of dollars of capital required to start a company? Or do you think someone's going to be able to start a small company in a market that's already saturated? especially when it comes to those goods and services, the corporations have a monopoly on slave labour and mass production, they also own the resources so they can produce things much cheaper. for example, Starbucks can get their coffee beans at a fraction of the price compared to some small individual business owner.
yes, capitalism is slavery because if people could get paid the full value of their labour, they never would work for minimum wage it companies such as Walmart and Amazon. 44% of the American population makes $18,000 a year or less. As a result, more people are committing suicide than ever before. I'm sure if there was an easy alternative they would choose it over suicide. Don't you think?
in the United States there are socially owned bread factories where people get paid $65,000 a year just for putting bread into a bag! do you think if everyone had that option they what instead choose to work for minimum wage, $7.25, at a company such as Walmart or Amazon? Of course not. but you think it's easy for anyone to develop an alternative which pays more. so you're saying people just really love living in poverty. Or they're just too stupid and lazy to create an alternative. so basically in your mind 50% of the American population are bunch of idiots! :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hamisam7651 , but it's because of capitalism that people have to work 12 and 14-hour days. The only reason people today are not working 17 hours a day along with 9-year-old children is because so many people got up and fought against capitalism. Back in the days of JP morgan, rockefeller, carnegie, they had pretty much pure capitalism.
The reason that there's so much poverty and why we still have to work 40 hours a week or more, that's because under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. The richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. That means the vast majority of people have to compete for What Little is left over. Whoever does the most work for the least amount of money, they're the ones that get the jobs. Competition drives people into poverty while simultaneously increasing profits for the few.
Under socialism you wouldn't have to work that long because you would own the product of your labor. You would get all of the wealth that your labor produced. And on top of that, you would get to keep more of your money because when buying goods and services you'd only be paying for the labor, not have you most of that wealth going to shareholders. For example, you have people like Clint Eastwood that made hundreds of millions of dollars in the movies. He used that money to buy Capital which allows him to make thousands of dollars per minute, even while he's sleeping. So when you buy food, toothpaste, chewing gum, electricity, etc, you're not just paying for the cost of the product or the labor, you have to pay people like Donald Trump and Clint Eastwood. That's why things are so expensive. Under a real economic system things will be getting cheaper and working hours would be getting shorter while Prosperity would be increasing.
Productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. But under capitalism that led to the Advent of the billionaire class because everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. It's like if you triple the output of a cow that doesn't help the cow, because the milk belongs to the farmer.
Socialism is the idea that the cow should actually own its milk! Not someone else. I think that's a pretty good idea. But of course the capitals class they don't like that because if you own your own milk, then they can't! Basically we're talking about the difference between freedom and slavery
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@freedomwatch3991 , here are a few examples of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@majorjockitch , no, the type of socialism he's talking about gives the maximum control and freedom to the people. We know this to be true because there are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world.
Here is an example of two social owned workplaces in the United States. You'll notice that the assembly line workers at the bread factory make between 65 and $70,000 a year. That's because they own product of their own labour and because they're their own bosses.
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
We know exactly how well Democratic workplaces function compared to capitalist Enterprise is because there are hundreds of thousands of them and there's no shortage of hard empirical data to go by.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billnyetherussianspy3187 , of course the United States is not a hundred percent capitalist. That's because there's no such thing as pure capitalism. You couldn't even get close to Pure capitalism without the whole system collapsing with in record time.
However, there was a time in US history where they got as close to Pure capitalism as humanly possible. You know what the consequences were? Absolute hell on Earth! You might want to take a peek at the public record.
"In fact, we did practice something close to a pure capitalism in 1893. The result was economic depression and widespread unemployment, nine-year-old children working fourteen-hour days, typhoid and cholera epidemics in Philadelphia and other eastern cities, malnutrition and tuberculosis, and contaminated water and food supplies for the poor.
We had uninhibited environmental devastation and horrible work conditions, no pension programs or minimum wage, no occupational or consumer safety regulations, no prohibitions against child labor, and no Social Security, collective bargaining, or industrial unionism. We had unrestrained monopolies and trusts – and enormously high profits.
Conditions in the United States in 1893 were not unlike what they are today through much of the Third World. But for the capitalists of that era, these dismal conditions were not seen as evidence of the system's failure. For them, capitalism in the good old days was working quite well. Success was measured not by the quality of food, drinking water, housing, schools, transportation, and health care, but by the rate of capital accumulation.
The function of capitalism then and now has been to invest capital in order to accumulate more capital, and in that sense the system has performed superbly, for those who own and control it.
Today, the conservative goal is the Third Worldization of America, to reduce the U.S. working populace to a Third World condition, having people work harder and harder for less and less. This includes a return to the "free market,” free of environmental regulations, free of consumer protections, minimum wages, occupational safety, and labor unions, a market crowded with underemployed labor, so better to depress wages and widen profit margins.
Conservatives also seek the abolition of human services and other forms of public assistance that give people some buffer against free-market forces. Underemployment is a necessary condition for Third Worldization. Alan Budd, professor of economics at the London Business School candidly observed (Observer, June 21, 1992) that the Thatcher government's cuts in public spending were a cover to bash workers: ”Raising unemployment was a very desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. What was engineered was a crisis in capitalism, which recreated a reserve army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.” With underemployment and poverty come the return of turbeculosis, homelessness, and hunger, and a sharp increase in the number of people who work at nonunion, low-paying, dead-end poverty-level jobs.
The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization."
~ Michael Parenti
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , yeah, you're a very educated person. Very very intelligent. I'm always very impressed by your acumen.
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, the United States is number one for prison population, selling weapons to dictatorships, mental disorders, spousal abuse, serial killers, Etc. However, when it comes to equality, education, literacy, freedom, social Mobility, quality of life, happiness, the United States does very very poorly compared to most European countries.
2
-
2
-
Why would you say that? We don't need capitalism in order to have businesses, markets, innovation, production, Etc.
Capitalism is about accumulating capital so that you can get an income without having to do any work. Why do you think Bill Gates is now the largest owner of Farmland in the United States? Why do you think he now owns a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system and wants to own the rest of it?
Under the capitalist system the richest members of society own most of the capital. So if you want food, clothing, Medical, housing, you have to pay extra money to people like Bill Gates. Capitalist increase the cost of living and the amount of work the rest of us have to do. If you have to pay an extra $100 to Bill Gates every time you get a blood test, that's $100 you no longer have to spend in the economy.
With socialism you still have businesses, production, markets, Etc, without the parasites! Yeah, that really bums some people out because in that environment if you want something, you actually have to work for! In that environment you just can't simply go out and purchase shares and collect money while you're sleeping.
Thinking that we need a combination of capitalism and socialism is like thinking that hosts need parasite.
Regulated capitalism and faux socialism (progressive taxation/ social programs) within the capitalist framework is just a strategy to maintain a balance between host and parasite. The capitalist class wants to extract as much blood as possible without actually killing the host. That's the trick.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danbenson7587 , ▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪ Study number 5: The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey.
>>> a few examples regarding Forms of social production:
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
There's also many Forms of socialized Finance. Too many to list.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sumoniggro , and, on top of that, socialist companies are actually more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. Capitalist companies destroy free markets because they violate the basic principles of economics. For example, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can capitalist companies achieve equilibrium when their goal is to maximize profit? How is profit-maximizing? By getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. That creates a situation where the workers will never be able to afford all of that which they produce. If you have 90% of the wealth going to the owners of capital, the richest 1%, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 10% of what they produce. Where does the purchasing power come from to maintain jobs and the economy through consumption? As soon as consumption slows down, people get laid off. People that get laid off can't consume. That results in more people being laid off. Literally, the more successful a capitals company is at maximizing profit the less purchasing power workers have!
So, anyone who supports capitalism either doesn't understand economics or is a liar. 😀 capitalism is a religion. It's an anti economic system.
In order to keep the system running, any increases in profit have to be offset with increased access to credit. Otherwise the economy will contract. Why do you think it is there so much debt?
And why do you think it is that working hours don't decrease under capitalism? Because workers do not own the product of their labour! Again, how can you achieve equilibrium if workers don't own the product of their labour? 😀
Do you have any how much productivity has increased over the last 50 years? So why are we still working a 40-hour work week? Because it doesn't matter how much workers produce because under capitalism they're basically nothing more than human livestock. If you you steroids in order to double the milk production of a cow, the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours because the north belongs to the farmer.
What were you saying about socialist not understanding economics? Care to elaborate? 😀
2
-
He's pretty clear about what he wants. He wants to make it easier for workers to get access to Capital so they have to be as dependent upon capitalist corporations for jobs and goods and services. That will create competition for the capitalists which will increase wages while keeping prices low.
Doesn't want every company to be a cooperative. He points out that if most of our GDP were coming from worker owned companies then instead of having most of the wealth going to a small Rich minority it would be going to the workers who would in turn spend that money into the economy which would create more demand. Trickle up economics, if you will. That will make it easier for people to start their own small businesses. Coffee shops, Pizza shops, whatever. The problem with having too many capitalist companies is that their goal of maximizing profit causes a saturation of the market while decreasing the purchasing power of workers. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. But obviously that creates a situation where workers cannot afford all of that which they produce. And once consumption starts to slow, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a domino effect, a downward spiral. That's why there's so much debt. When you have a situation where workers can't afford the goods and services they produce, the only alternative is to borrow more and more money from the future. Now we have to borrow so much from the future there's no longer enough hard currency to cover it. So that's why we have fractional Reserve banking.
You see, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium between Supply and demand. But the more successful capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have. That's why capitalism actually destroys the markets. And why people still have to work a 40-hour work week in order to survive even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. You see, it doesn't matter how much output a worker produces. Everything he produces belongs to someone else. It's like if you were to double the output of a cow, all that milk belongs to the farmer. The worker is paid as little as possible, that makes him dependent upon a 40-hour work week even though we should only be working about 20 hours a week by now.
Socialism is more conducive to free markets because workers get the full value of their labor, and that means there's a balance between what is produced and what they can afford to buy.
Richard wolf doesn't want to force people to pay taxes so that healthcare, education, and all of those other programs are paid for. He wants to leave that up to the communities. When most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies, then the workers can decide how much their income they want to put towards such things. For example, there's a Cooperative in Spain we're 100,000 workers own their own hospital, high-tech Research Laboratories, numerous types of factories, etc. Those workers don't have to worry about being ripped off by landlords because the workers agreed use their tax Dollar in order to provide as much social housing as needed. That doesn't mean that housing is free. It just means that when you pay your rent at the end of the month, you're just paying for the cost of the building, the cost of the maintenance, etc. Not one penny is going to some landlord. You don't have to worry about working three out of four weeks for free just to cover your. Rent. You get to put that money into your pocket which you can use then to save up to buy your own home instead of paying for the landlords lifestyle, his car, his children, his home, etc.
2
-
@ExPwner
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create working class owning class dichotomy we're a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet and get most of the wealth.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the rich is 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access healthcare, education, etc.
▪ Here's an example of your reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You just described capitalism! Capitalism is about capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour and resources.
Capitalist by up apartment buildings, houses, grocery stores, railroads, electrical companies, Etc. Then they charge people as much money as possible for access to those goods and services.
Capitalist companies maximize profit by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible.
Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. They own it collectively, socially. That way the workers actually own the product of their labour and get all of the wealth of their labour produces.
For example, here are two socialist companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
If most of our GDP were coming from worker-owned cooperatives, then we would have a socialist economy. A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP is coming from privately-owned companies that utilize wage labour for profit. Too many capitalist companies cause serious problems in the economy. For example, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. But the goal of put the list companies is to maximize profit. Profit is maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. But that creates a situation where the workers cannot afford all of the goods and services that they produce. If consumption slows down, people get laid off. People that get laid off can't consume. In order for the economy to expand, you have to be increasing the purchasing power of workers. Not doing everything you can to decrease it for the purpose of profit maximization. So, the more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , people shouldn't have to work any more than 20 hours a week by now considering that productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. But the problem with capitalism is that everything produced by workers belongs to someone else! So it doesn't matter if the cow produces three times the amount of milk. It all belongs to the farmer.
You have absolutely no understanding of how economies work. You don't understand that our economy is the sum total of all our labor. And then you lie about having a master's degree in accounting while making the most absurd comments. For example,
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create working class owning class dichotomy we're a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet and get most of the wealth.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the rich is 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access healthcare, education, etc.
▪ Here's an example of your reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , you have no idea what you're talking about. All a person has to do is look at your comments to know that you've got no understanding of economics or political science.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create working class owning class dichotomy we're a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet and get most of the wealth.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the rich is 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access healthcare, education, etc.
▪ Here's an example of your reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
@ExPwner , you see, you still can't read. Even when I explain it to you. I said oh well comes from labor because without it capital is dead. What does that mean? That means all wealth comes from mixing labor with capital. Where else does it come from? LOL you disagree? Do you think a company such as Walmart or Amazon would be able to exist without labor? You really have no idea how a low functioning you are. Perfect example of the Kruger effect.
I had to update your quote list:
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
@MA-uc9qu , the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about doesn't have anything to do with the government or state ownership.
And it's because people are lazy and greedy that we need socialism. You see, the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about is a non-hierarchical, bottom-up democratic form of organization. That means there's no one at the top that has authority over those underneath. Therefore you don't have to worry about corruption, greedy people, evil people, Etc. Under capitalism you have to worry about those things. Not only can your boss tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom, he can replace you with a family member or any other form of nepotism. Under socialism, you don't have to worry about that kind of thing.
There are 3 main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc. without these regulations capitalism would collapse. this type of socialism is prominent in Canada, the United States, Etc. Americans like to call it Democratic Socialist. in Europe they call it social democracy. Same thing, different name.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. (state-owned Enterprises). Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour.
a few examples,
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
Here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
If we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
Traditional socialism / anarchism is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy.
When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
you might find this diagram helpful
https://images.app.goo.gl/j9yxejh1ok3fy2ah7
this short video should help clear up any misconceptions and preconceived ideas regarding socialism. https://youtu.be/mZ_geTZaJOw
You see, the core concept of socialism has always been about workers owning and controlling their own means of production. That idea goes right back to the time of the Enlightenment. indirect ownership, through the government, that concept came at a much later date.
if you like, I can recommend over a dozen text books on the subject. I can almost guarantee several of them will be available at your Public Library. Do you have a library card? Would you like those references? I would also recommend that you read a people's History of the United States, whether you live in the USA or not. you also might want to do some research on the enclosure movement and the history of wage slavery compared to chattel slavery.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@amgroblin5898 , any employee that doesn't work hard enough is beaten. Then they pull his fingernails out and dip his hands in vinegar.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create working class owning class dichotomy we're a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet and get most of the wealth.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the rich is 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access healthcare, education, etc.
▪ Here's an example of your reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , you have no idea what you're talking about. Capitalism makes people poorer. Why do you think it is that most individuals can't afford a family on a single income? The richest 1% in the USA now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91%.
Concentration of ownership increases under capitalism constantly. Every time there's an economic downturn you have bigger companies buying up the smaller companies. As concentration of ownership increases, the lack of competition allows them to increase their prices. That's one of the factors that causes inflation under capitalism.
Another thing that drives inflation is the fact that workers do not get enough wealth to actually buy all the goods and services they put into circulation. If 90% of the GDP go to the owners of capital, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 10% of that which they produce. The only way to stop the economy from Contracting due to consumption rate slowing down is to pump credit into the system. You have to borrow more and more from the future. The only problem with continuously raising the debt ceiling is that now we no longer have enough hard currency to cover all of that debt. But the capitalist class was able to figure out the solution to that conundrum by printing money into existence. Now they just print as many IOUs as necessary. 😀
The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. Profit is maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. The more successful the capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have while simultaneously having more access to goods and services that need to be consumed in order to stop the economy from contracting.
You claim to have a master's degree in accounting. But it couldn't be more obvious that you have an even taken economics 101.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Stop spamming! You're the troll. Stop being such a hypocrite. Look at all the trolling you've done on this page so far. Get the gene Epstein Richard wolf debate. You post more personal messages directed at people rather than addressing the actual debate.
And then you spam your utter nonsense.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create working class owning class dichotomy we're a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet and get most of the wealth.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the rich is 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access healthcare, education, etc.
▪ Here's an example of your reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
@ExPwner , yeah, I sure did.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BinanceUSD , well I don't think they will be able to coexist with capitalist companies. With mom-and-pop businesses, yes. But not when it comes to capitalist companies because those companies are dependant upon profit. Get the workers get 100% of their labour value then there is no profit for shareholders or owners.
For example, there is a socialist bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year. That's because they own the product of their labour. If all workers had the option of getting the full value of their labour, would they work at someplace like Walmart? Of course not.
If everyone had the option of social housing, worker-owned housing, why would a person choose to live in someone else's apartment building? No one in their right mind is going to want to hand over their paycheck to a landlord. Most people would rather spend their paychecks on themselves, not paying for the landlord's lifestyle. Too much social housing cuts into profits and destroys landlords. Likewise, too many cooperatives would destroy capitalist companies. Someone like Jeff Bezos would either have to increase automation or learn how to do all the work himself. 😃
That's why it's predicted that capitalism has a limited lifespan. Capitalism is the organizational system of a type 0 civilization. If we make the transition to a type 1 civilization, capitalism won't be able to exist. Kind of like Star Trek, which was based on a type 2 civilization. If you have mass abundance, if you can produce all of the goods and services required by civilization with minimal labour and energy, then their costs become nearly obsolete. For example, if gold was as plentiful as water in the ocean, how much value would it have? Capitalism is depended upon scarcity. That's why we now have so much planned obsolescence and what they refer to as contrived durability. For a long time now we've had the capacity to build things such as refrigerators that would never rust, breakdown, their colours would never fade. But if we built all appliances that way, it would be absolutely disastrous for the economy. Likewise, if we were able to cure cancer tomorrow, the economy would probably collapse! 😀 there's hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs thanks to illnesses such as cancer and diabetes. Those people spend a lot of money into the economy. If they were to lose that money, consumption rates would slow and people would get laid off. People that are laid off can't consume. Even more people get laid off. Total collapse. Efficiency, durability, healthy and happy people, all antithetical to the capitalist economy.
2
-
@BinanceUSD , it's definitely a very exciting time to be alive. Unfortunately a lot of scientists don't believe that homo sapiens are intelligent enough to be able to make the transition from a type 0 to a type 1 civilization. We're already well into a sixth mass extinction. Ninety-nine percent of species have been wiped out.
What % of Earth's species are now extinct? Of all the species that have ever existed on Earth, 99.9 % are now extinct.
According to a recent poll, 7 out of 10 biologists think we are currently in the throes of a 6th mass extinction.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current
disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their
life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded."
John McMurtry
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
Capitalism is the organizational system of a type 0 civilization. It's extremely primitive. Monkeys with imaginary money. Value of which is held up by nothing more than faith. 😃
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SanJacinto23 , what are you talkin about? The Cooperative sector is expanding all the time. Even in the United States. Obviously it's a lot easier for people to start a business collectively then it is as an individual. No, it is not easy to start a business under the capitalist system. If it was you wouldn't have 90% of the population depended upon wage labor for survival. Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide every day because they're trapped in dead-end jobs such as Walmart and amazon? The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index. Number 27! Your odds of living the American dream would be better in Portugal or lithuania. LOL
But yeah, the Cooperative sector is expanding all the time. There is reasons in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies. And worker-owned companies are much more durable compared to capitalist companies.
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
and statistically speaking, workers are happier, more creative, take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of mental illness, depression, substance abuse, etc.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪ Study number 5: The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey.
>>> a few examples regarding Forms of social production:
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, he's not expecting anyone to give anything away for free. I don't know where you got that idea from. You're making an assumption. You misunderstand the point of the grandma analogy. The point is, when workers own their own means of production at a cooperative, they're doing the work themselves. They're not paying someone else to do the work for them. It's like a family environment and interaction. You're not exploiting your fellow workers. So in the case of the grandma analogy, the family was making thinks giving dinner for themselves. But as business, the family would be making dinners to sell. In that case, the family members would get paid according to their contribution from the sales of their product.
Capitalism is about capitalizing on other people's labour and creativity. Just like when a farmer owns a cow or a beehive. If the farmer gives bovine growth hormone to the cow, the cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of milk. The farmer does! but if the cow is free, then all the milk goes to the cow. And that's the idea of socialism. At worker cooperatives the workers do the work themselves. At a capitalist Enterprise, employees do the work for the employer and they only get paid a portion of what their labour produces. but when you're working for yourself, you get 100% of your labour value.
And that's why we still have the 8 hour day and 40 Hour Work Week. It doesn't matter how much technology and automation increases output. Just like with the cow, all the milk goes to the farmer. The cows have to fight to get better pay and have working hours reduced. If it wasn't for so many people fighting and dying, we'd still be working 16 hours a day for a dollar. You see, free people and free cows don't have to fight for the milk that they produce. So if you ever wondered why originally capitalism was referred to wage slavery, that is it.
Under socialism (worker socialism not State socialism) is a good thing. If a forklift replaces 500 people, you now have 500 people to share in the remaining workload. under capitalism those 500 people end up on the unemployment line where they have to compete with all the other unemployed people for the remaining ever decreasing jobs. That competition has driven the value of Labor down to the point where now 44% of Americans make $18,000 a year or less and 85% of Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Under socialism competition is very good at automation is very good! Under capitalism those things are very very bad! well, unless you're the farmer. But if you're a cow, not so good. farmers are constantly are constantly are constantly are constantly producing are constantly producing propaganda are constantly producing propaganda in order to convince the cows that the farming system is the best system. 😀😆
if you own a bee Hive, and you take 50% of the honey, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you're taking. minimum wage laws keeps capitalism from driving wages down below a certain level. Likewise, labour laws keep capitalism from driving up the number of working hours. but because all increase in productivity are immediately siphoned off, just like honey from a beehive, we don't see working hours decreasing. unfortunately for the honeybees, they don't have labour laws. Therefore we see the capitalists taking as much honey as possible and then replacing it with high-fructose corn syrup. This leads to malnutrition for the bees, making them more susceptible to pesticides, disease and infections.
2
-
2
-
@JordanX767 , that's right, the agenda has to be truth. That's why the first principle is to always ask why. The second one is to analyze, identify and isolate the problem. The third principle is to gather as much evidence as possible. Third, you have to analyze biased and assumptions. Your own and those of others. People have different motivations. People's behaviour and motives flow from their centres. For example, in the event of a market crash, a money-centered person behave differently then a religious centered person. The fifth principle to avoid emotional reasoning. In order to be objective, you can't get emotional. Number six, don't oversimplify or engage in black-and-white thinking or false dichotomies. Number seven, consider other explanations and interpretations. Number eight, tolerate uncertainty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chucklee9291 , of course collectivism works. There are hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies in the United States and around the world. Statistically speaking, worker-owned companies are more efficient, more durable, they're better for workers, workers are more creative, workers have less incidence of mental illness, they take fewer sick days, Etc.
For example a study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
So when you say that collectivism doesn't work, that statement is both a- historical and empirically false.
2
-
@chucklee9291 , you're not free to negotiate your wage. When it comes to First World countries, Americans are number one when it comes to low-wage labour. Why is that? Because under capitalism you have very little negotiating power. That's why so many people fought and died to achieve the right to unionize. Also, you're missing the point. You don't own the product of your labour everything you produce belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. That's the point. You see, under socialism you actually own the product of your labour. So if a machine replaces 500 people, you celebrate because you now have 500 people to share in the remaining workload. Under socialism labor-saving technology and capital benefit those who work the hardest. Under capitalism labor-saving technology and capital benefits the owning class at the expense of the workers. That's why socialist companies are much better for workers and communities and markets. When workers get the full value of their labour they have more purchasing power in that creates greater demand. That makes it easier for a person to start their own small business. And keep in mind when I say start a business, I don't mean a capitalist business. You don't need capitalism in order to have a business. You see, that's one of the greatest propaganda accomplishments of all times, convincing people that capitalism is equated with freedom and ability to operate a business. But that's not true. If you write a book and you fill it in the market, that's not capitalism. If you grow potatoes in your garden and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Merely selling the product of your labour is not capitalism. Capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour and resources. Basically, living off of other people's labour. Or, you like to put it the way the capitalist do, not working hard for your money but making your money work hard for you. 😀
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If socialism didn't work then countries such as the United States wouldn't have to go out of their way to suppress Nations that attempt the transition. The United States is on record for saying that they have to strangle socialism soon as it starts to appear. That's why they went into vietnam! That's why they Force the Soviet Union into an arms race the intention of bankrupting and making sure that they they were financially restrained so that they couldn't make the transition. Even then their achievements were absolutely astounding. The Soviet Union was able to do in 50 years what took the United States 300 years to accomplish! And they were able to do it without slavery, genocide and resource theft. Look what happened to Afghanistan back in the seventies. why do you think the United States funded and weaponized the mujahideen and Taliban for the purpose overthrowing the people's democracy?
Do you have any idea how many governments the United States has overthrown just since 1945? Do you have any idea how many countries they have bombed? They have interfered in the elections of over 30 different countries from around the world.
Yeah, gee, I wonder why socialism doesn't work. It's like breaking someone's legs and then asking why they can't run.
100 million? I think that's a highly over-exaggerated number. Most of those deaths were as a result of natural famines or economic sabotage. 100.000 deaths occurred in Venezuela as a result of us sanctions. Look what happened to Libya when they try to make the transition from capitalism to socialism, moving away from the US dollar.
And why wouldn't socialism work? Capitalists are just unnecessary Middle Men. Socialist companies are more productive, more efficient, more innovative, workers are happier, more productive, there's less incidence of substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, etc.
Capitalists rely on Experts to run the companies anyway. It's the accountants, the engineers, professional managers, specialists, those are the people that the capitalists rely on. you remove the capitalist nothing changes.
Where would you rather work? At a capitalist dictatorship or a Democratic Socialist company? https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
At the Socialist company you own the product of your labor and you get to keep all of the wealth that your labor produces. When workers get the wealth instead of a small Rich minority, that's more conducive to a free market and thriving economy because it increases purchasing power. That creates more demand in the economy and that makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He should be more anti-capitalist. Not left. Capitalism is the root of the problem. It's an immoral system that's based on exploitation.
Also, capitalism is not conducive to free markets are thriving economies. Just the opposite. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. But the goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible. That creates a massive disparity between supply and demand. Income has to be commensurate with purchasing power. That's because jobs are tied to consumption. Consumption slow, people get laid off and can't consume. You end up with the domino effect. That's one of the reasons why the system crashes every 4 to 7 years. The more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have? So technically speaking, capitalism is anti economic system.
Socialism is more conducive to free markets and thriving economies because the workers actually own the product of their labour. A worker create $20,000 worth of wealth, they now have $20,000 worth of purchasing power.
For example, there's a socially owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. That was ten years ago. It's probably much higher today. How much does an assembly line worker make at Walmart or Amazon? Who's going to create more demand in the economy? The worker was $70,000 worth of purchasing power or the one with $20,000?
You see, at socialist companies the wealth flows to the workers instead of someone like Jeff Bezos. When the wealth goes to someone like Jeff Bezos they spend it on going to space and buying politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, accountants, Etc. When the money goes to workers, they spend that into the economy. That causes the economy to expand. Capitalist companies maximize profits by keeping wages low and that causes the economy to contract.
When labor-saving technology is introduced at a socialist company, the workers can produce more with less labour and therefore have more wealth. When labor-saving technology is introduced that a capitalist company, workers get laid off and have to compete with one another for the remaining jobs. That drives wages down even lower while increasing production output. That creates even more disparity between supply and demand, purchasing power and the goods and services in circulation.
That's why labour saving technology under capitalism led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours and increasing prosperity for everyone.
Capitalism is literally a human livestock management system. When you introduce labor-saving technology it's not the worker who gets to work fewer hours. The capitalist ends up with more stuff because the owns everything the workers produce. Just like if you were to give a cow bovine growth hormone to double milk production, the cow doesn't get twice the amount of wealth. The cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. The cow doesn't get twice the amount of milk. All of the milk belongs to the farmer. And just about everything produced on this planet does not belong to the worker it belongs to the owner of capital.
That's why the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the United States population. That's why the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And why the 8th richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
You can't have billionaires accumulating thousands of dollars per second, even when they're sleeping, and not have massive poverty. We can produce far more than we're capable of consuming. Just since 1950 productivity levels have more than tripled. But yet we're still depended upon a 40 hour work week because we have to support all of those people making thousands of dollars per second from their Capital Holdings.
Anytime you have a dollar that goes to someone who didn't work for it, somewhere else you have someone who work for it all or they don't get.
Capitalism is about maximizing capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour and resources. But the more wealth you extract from workers, the less the workers can afford to buy. It's not like when you extract honey from a beehive forcing the bees to work longer and harder. For them the consequences death. The consequence for us is fractional Reserve banking where they have to pump more more credit into the system in order to maintain rates of consumption in the face of ever decreasing purchasing power as capitalist companies become more successful at maximizing profit.
Again, capitalism is the root cause of the problem.
2
-
2
-
@arielroman8644 , no, that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. Merely selling the product of one's labour is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. If you write a book and sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. When workers own their own means of production and do their own work , that is not capitalism. In order for it to be capitalist the workers would have to hire other people to do the work for them while only paying them a portion of the well that they create with their labour.
The core concept of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. Traditionally socialism was about the direct ownership of the means of production. Much later on socialism divided into two categories. Direct ownership and indirect ownership to the government. The traditional socialists, people such as myself and Noam Chomsky, don't consider State ownership to be a legitimate form of Socialism. we refer to this as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital and acts as the employer instead of a private individual.
Richard Wolff is a traditional socialist. He's not talking about State ownership. He is making an argument for direct worker ownership.
socialism is conducive to free markets and thriving economies. capitalism is not. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. You can't achieve equilibrium if workers don't get the full value of their labour. If 75% of the wealth produced by labour goes to the billionaire class, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of the goods and services they produce. however, if consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. that's why there's so much debt under capitalism and why there's so much instability.
Capitalism Is a modern form of slavery.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RANDassociatesinc , I already did. I gave you two examples. You want more?
>>> Forms of social production:
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social mandate, while still earning an adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You didn't see that section of the debate where Richard Wolff explains that he's started and operated several successful companies?
We know what Richard Wolff is saying regarding worker-owned companies compared to private companies because there's no shortage of hard empirical data to go by. The data is very very clear.
No, Patrick couldn't even make one single solitary argument or counter-argument. The man didn't even know that markets and capitalism are two different things. Richard Wolff has literally written textbooks on these subjects. He's been teaching these subjects for three-quarters of a century!
We know exactly how well socialist companies compared to capitalist Enterprises. That's because there's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies in the United States and around the world. We have data going back almost a hundred years!
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪ Study number 5: The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aschu234 , also, I should add, markets are not unique to capitalism. Again, socialism is more conducive to free markets and thriving economies.
"Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production."
▪︎ O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0415241878. Market socialism is the general designation for a number of models of economic systems. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11004612
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. p. 142. "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882
▪︎ types of socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
▪︎ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Types_of_socialism
▪︎ libertarian socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
▪︎ Oscar Wilde, the soul of a man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialism
Here is an example of two Democratic workplaces in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
How to start. 10 steps https://canada.coop/en/programs/co-op-development/how-start-co-op
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@reddoggie554 , you asked why Mondragon exploits workers. I'm not sure why you'd be asking that question. I'm not sure what that has to do with anyting. Why does the Catholic Church molest young children? In the days of the founding fathers why did the constitution only include members of the owning class? That would be a good question. If the founders were so big on freedom and the rule of law, why didn't that extend to women, people of colour, foreigners, non landowners, Etc? The argument is, the question is, which side would you rather be on? The Democratic side, or the side that's exploited? If you had the option of getting paid the full value of your labour, would you work for someone else for less? Would you go to work for Mondragon if they were only willing to pay you half of what everyone else gets paid? Anyway, I have no idea why Mondragon exploits people they hire. Profit? Greed? Let me know if you find out.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jgalt308 , worker cooperatives solve all kinds of problems. For one, you stop the massive transfer of wealth produced by labour from going to the idle shareholders that don't contribute. Second, they're more democratic. Instead of some CEO deciding how much workers get paid, what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, who gets hired and fired, those things are decided by the workers. So yeah, if you want to keep more money in your pocket and you don't like working at a dictatorship, then cooperatives are a better alternate. So yeah, it does solve those problems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@angelo-001 , oh cool! thanks for the link!
Socialism doesn't have anything to do with giving money away. The core concept of socialism is workers collectively owning their own business or factory, operating them democratically. Statistically speaking, collectively owned companies are more durable, more stable, more efficient, the workers are happier, more productive, more creative, take less sick days, Etc. They are bought them up, non-hierarchical Democratic forms of organization. Because the workers actually own the product of their labour, the more they make, the more wealth they accumulate.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ajb7786 , Richard Wolff doesn't know economics or history? Are you out of your mind? do you honestly think a person who was educated at Harvard, Yale and Stanford, achieving a PhD in economics, and then teaching the subject for well over half a century, do you honestly think such a person could accomplish all that without understanding economics? Seriously? If he doesn't understand economics or history, then how come he's never had to make a retraction in any of his Publications? Someone Like Richard wolf ever got making a mistake, his detractors that are funded by multi-billionaires would be throwing it in his face at every turn. It would be brought up at every debate.
Anyway, you certainly can't say that Richard Wolff does not know economics. That's simply not being rational. you seem to be triggered over his criticisms. why are you having such an emotional reaction? Is your identity fused with the capital system? If someone attacks capitalism, do you yourself feel attacked?
And yes, capitalism is a horrible system that's based on exploitation. it was one of the most destructive and wasteful system ever devised. One child dies every 15 seconds from starvation even though we throw away 1.2 billion tons of food annually just to artificially maintained prices within the capitalist Market. 80% of the world's population subsists on $10 a day or less. there's no reason for this. We've had the capability of producing far more than were able to consume since 1929. Since 1950 productivity has more than tripled while the need for labour has been cut in half. most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. However, the two richest Americans have more wealth than the poorest half of the population. that bottom half of the population actually lives 20 years less compared to the top 10%.
capitalism is not even conducive to free markets. it violates basic economic principles. for example, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a downward spiral. You have a domino effect. but, because corporations want to maximize their profits, they do everything they can to suppress wages. As a result, production output increases at a much faster rate than wages do. so how can workers actually afford all the goods and services in circulation? they can't. That's why there's so much debt. Any erosion of purchasing power has to be offset with increased access to credit. that helps keep the system going for a while, but in the long run, interest on that credit will only serve to reduce purchasing power even further, exacerbating the situation. Capitalism is a religion.
and if that's not bad enough, you also have to consider how it's destroying the planet. we might have already passed the Rubicon in regards to global warming. Capitalism is the most wasteful and destructive system ever devised.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
John McMurtry
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
2
-
2
-
People don't have equal opportunity under capitalism. Especially not in the United States. And Richard Wolff is not talking about equal outcome. Where did you get an idea like that from? he's not talking about the type I'm socialism where workers actually own and control their own businesses, directly. That's the type of socialism he's advocating.
for example, almost 60% of the USA gets its electricity from worker and community-owned Electrical cooperatives.
there are hundreds of thousands of democratic, socially owned workplaces in the United States and around the world.
example, Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2
-
@djlee21 , Richard Wolff is not advocating the type of socialism that's associated with taxation. second, increasing the number of democratic workplaces would actually decrease in Need for progressive taxation. third, you most certainly do not get to keep most of the wealth that you're labour produces under capitalism. under socialism you do. Like I already pointed out, at a socially owned company, workers own the product of their labour. Therefore, they actually get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces.
for example, at the socially owned bread factory the assembly line workers are able to make $70,000 per year. That's because they own every loaf of bread that they make. so, if they make a million dollars with a bread, that money goes to the workers. However, when workers produce a million dollars at a company such as Walmart or Amazon, most of that money goes to idle shareholders, many of whom may not even be in the same country. That's the difference between socialism and capitalism.
Socialism rewards workers that allows them to keep all the wealth that they produce with their labour. capitalism allows rich people to keep most of the wealth produced by labour.
under capitalism, when you get a blood test or toilet paper to wipe your ass with, most of the money goes to some Idol shareholder or owner, not to the worker that actually produce those things.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, that simply isn't true. When you have 90% of the pie going to 1% of the population, you're going to have a lot of poverty, regardless of hard people work or how much education they get. It's like thinking that everyone can win the lottery if they just buy enough tickets. No, the map doesn't work that way. Just like the lottery, under capitalism, for everyone winter you have to have many losers. The richest 1% now have almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population.
However, as Richard points out, social collectivism greatly improves your odds of succeeding. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thereeseterbunny , you think Norman Finkelstein is childish? You seriously don't understand his frustration? I guess you don't know who Norman Finkelstein is. Being honest with someone, someone that's being extremely arrogant, pointing out that they're stupid, that's not being childish. That's called honesty. Destiny is a moron. And worse yet, he's so stupid I don't even think he realizes he's stupid. No, Finkelstein was not acting out of childishness. He has Decades of experience debating leading experts in international law and history. You might want to check out some of those debates. In 40 years I've never seen him call someone moronic in a debate. Same with Noam Chomsky. But people have their limits. The last debate I seen with Destiny he was debating an economics professor. For almost 2 hours the debate went nowhere because Destiny couldn't accept the fact that capitalism and markets are two different things. The man honestly didn't know that markets predate capitalism by centuries. And then, to argue with someone with a phd, someone that teaches economics at the PhD level, telling them that they're wrong about the basic definition of capitalism, socialism, communism, etc, now that's childish. I don't think you can appreciate what Norman Finkelstein has been through over the last several months. The man is completely exhausted. And now having to deal with some uneducated half wit with the reading comprehension of a grade 6 student and even less knowledge of History, talk about almost intolerable. I don't even know why Destiny was at that debate. It doesn't even make any sense to me. I mean if you were going to have a debate regarding astrophysics with leading experts, say people such as Michio Kaku, Albert Einstein, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, would you invite someone like destiny? Someone that doesn't even understand basic chemistry. I can just imagine him in that group arguing against basic facts. The only reason I can think he was there is because he has such a large fan base. And that's probably because the educational standard in the United States has dropped significantly over the last 10 years. Things are so bad now that over 54% of Americans can't even read or write! So now we have people like Destiny sitting in at debates with individuals such Norman Finkelstein. Do you have any idea who he is? I hope you know who Noam Chomsky is, at the very least. Oh my god. The world has gone insane. It's no wonder that 25% of Americans have some form of mental illness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thedimitrator , the pill I outlined for fixing the problem? I didn't outline anyting. I said that the only reason that workers have a modicum of prosperity is because of the labour movement. Under capitalism, everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. It belongs to the owners of capital. Workers are paid as little as possible. The only reason they're not getting a dollar a day like in some third world countries is because of the labour movement. It's because of the workers fought and died for the right to unionize. In order to pacify those workers, the capitalist class had to make certain concessions. That's why we have a 40 hour work week. That's why we have an 8 hour day, the weekend, child labour laws, old age pensions, consumer safety standards, worker safety laws, regulations that prevent people from being overworked, Etc. But for some time now the capitalist class has been rolling back all of those privileges. Just like they said they would. And they're not going to stop until they return to the good old days of capitalism, the way things were before the labour movement.
Capitalism is not about working for wealth. It's about owning capital. Capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation. Capitalism allows the owners of capital to live off of other people's labour. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. There are some capitalist accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars a second, even while they're sleeping :-) all of that wealth comes from other people's labour. And the less workers get paid the more profit there is.
Socialism is just various forms of collectivism that allow workers to own their own means of production so that they can own the product of their labour. If you don't own the product of your labour, then you're basically nothing more than human livestock. Basically, that's what capitalism is. It's a human livestock management system. 😃
Why do you think it is that working hours never decrease under capitalism? Again, it's because everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. If you use bovine growth hormone to double milk production of a cow, that doesn't benefit the cow because the milk belongs to the farmer. Likewise, it doesn't matter that labor-saving technology triple production output over the last 30 years, because everything produced belongs to the capitalist. That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class while workers remain depended upon a 40-hour work week.
With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. But workers need 40 hours in order to survive. The capitalist has to constantly push into the markets of other countries because labor-saving technology allows us to produce things so quickly that only a matter of time before you start running out of customers. One of the reasons why capitalism is depended upon contrived durability and planned obsolescence.
Workers can now produce a year's supply of product within only a month or two. As a consequence, decent-paying jobs that used to have benefits are becoming fewer and fewer. Workers have to compete with one another in order to gain access to those jobs. That competition drives the value of Labor downward. That's why the vast majority of the population can no longer afford a family on a single income. Children are waiting longer and longer to move away from home. Eventually whole families will be forced to live together from cradle-to-grave. Just like things used to be during the good old days of capitalism when JPMorgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, didn't have to put up with worker demands. 😃
The founding fathers of the United States we're very clear that the country should always be ruled by those that own it! When they were talking about all people being equal, they were referring to themselves; the owning class. That's why if you didn't have property you weren't able to vote! The function of the capitalist government is to protect the capitalists from the human livestock.
The solution is to have a real economic system. An economic system where people actually have to work for a living instead of simply owning capital for the purpose of living off of other people's labour. People should own the product of their labour. No one should be entitled to the wealth that is produced by someone else. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. It is economic feudalism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ECisvotersuppression , I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever taken a course on economics? Have you ever taken a basic course on political science? Do you seriously Not understand the difference between a socialist economy and a capitalist economy? You have three main types of social organization. The private ownership of capital. Government ownership of capital. And a social ownership of capital. If most of the jobs and consumer goods are provided by private Enterprises, Then your economy is said to be capitalist. If most of those things are actually produced by socially owned Enterprises, then your economy is said to be socialist. There's a big difference between State ownership and social ownership. Here are some examples of socially owned Enterprises. They are democratic. Decision making is bottom-up, not top-down. No one has the authority to Fire you so that they higher their mistress or relative. No one has the authority the move production to China. That's why the hundred twenty five thousand workers in Spain that own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, Etc. , Have been so successful over the Last 75 years. They don't have capitals middlemen siphoning off all the wealth produced by their labour. It all goes to them, the workers. Their research capabilities are so Advanced that companies such as Intel, Ford, and Microsoft hire them to do research. Those workers are free! If you're doing work for someone else For a paycheck in order to survive, You're not free, You're a wage slave. Do you understand? Anyway, Here's an example of a socially owned Enterprise. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2
-
2
-
@ECisvotersuppression , You're not making any sense at all. Who said anything about hating rich people? You accuse me of being spoiled and not having any money? And how can I be spoiled? What are you talking about? Why am I not talking about drug lords and people who exploit children? Well those things too are externalities of the capitalist system. There are many studies that show when poverty and unemployment increase So does depression, drug use, prostitution, spousal abuse, Etc.
Anyway, my pointing out the facts about capitalism or the realities of poverty, That doesn't mean I hate rich people or that I am spoiled. The point is, things don't need to be this way. Capitalism is immoral and undemocratic. It violates basic Market and economic principles. There's no reason whatsoever I have one child dying every 15 second While we're simultaneously throwing away 1.2 billion tons of food, annually. There's no reason whatsoever That everyone on the planet can't have a high standard of living. Having 95% of the wealth going to 1% of the population Is not only immoral, it's insane. There is no justification for such a system.
I don't know how my pointing those facts makes me seem like a child or vindictive or spoiled, but I guess there's no accounting for some subjective viewpoints. 😀
2
-
@timcoulter7691 , statistically speaking worker cooperatives are more efficient, more durable, more Innovative, Etc. Also workers are happier, more creative, more efficient, they work harder, they take less sick days, there's less suicide, substance abuse, alcoholism, Etc.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SeñorSandalia , of course oil companies don't teach people economics. They pay economic experts a lot of money to produce propaganda in order to manipulate people into accepting capitalism. Capitalism is an immoral system that's based on exploitation. Not a viable system of organization.
Thomas is a paid propagandist. That's not my opinion, that's a matter of public record. That's also why he's on record saying the most absurd things. He has made many many statements that are certifiably false. Now as you can see by the list below, there are two main possibilities. Either he's stupid or he's lying. Sure, he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but no one's that stupid. 😀
▪ the Civil Rights Movement was a communist plot.
▪ social programs and financial aid for black people was a government conspiracy to keep African Americans enslaved.
▪ Compared Obama to Adolf Hitler.
▪ Tried to convince people that Obama was a socialist, even though it's quite clear from his political record that he is centre-right. Obama even admitted that 20 years ago he would have been considered a moderate Republican.
▪ Tries to convince people that socialism and fascism are identical, even though those ideologies are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
▪ says it's a myth that capitalism makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
▪ Capitalism is not inherently unstable: it wasn't responsible the Great Depression in any way, shape or form.
▪ Corporations don't earn obscene profits at the expense of consumers and workers.
▪ Corporations don't engage in predatory pricing, misleading advertising, and other deviations from the market ideal.
▪ Unrestrained capitalism doesn't lead to environmental destruction.
▪ Mergers and acquisitions have not concentrated economic and political power in fewer hands.
▪ Capitalism doesn't lead to globalism, which destroys culture and exacerbates inequality.
▪ Says government regulations are not necessary under capitalism to protect workers and consumers.
▪ claims that the free market will provide Fair wages and full employment for everyone, no government intervention needed.
▪ says there's absolutely no correlation between capitalism racism and segregation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Marxism is a type of science. it's an analytical tool.
all Richard Wolff is suggesting is that workers get together and form their own cooperatives. that way they can keep all of the money the company produces and they can be their own bosses.
For example, almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from these types of workplaces. There are thousands of worker cooperatives in the US.
Another example,
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AlexB-ts8hd , Karl Marx is an extremely admirable individual. How can one not admire Karl Marx?
How do you know what Richard Wolff has or has not contributed to society? Him and his wife have made numerous contributions the society.
he doesn't support government coercion. you make but yet another assumption. He supports traditional socialism. That is, he supports direct worker ownership and Community ownership. There are hundreds of thousands of those types of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world.
in fact, almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from those types of workplaces. those types of workplaces make workers and communities less depended upon the government, not more. They also make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods.
They are more conducive to a free market in the thriving economy because wealth and control stays with the workers and communities. When you increase purchasing power, the economy expands. When you erode purchasing power, which capitalism does, the economy contracts. That's because jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a domino effect. so, in order to keep consumption from slowing in the face of ever-increasing erosion of purchasing power, people have to be given more and more access to credit. More and more credit has to be pumped into the system. That's one of the reasons why interest rates are so low and why there's so much debt. now they're talking about introducing negative interest rates and a universal basic income.
if you have 75% of the wealth produced by labour going to the owners of capital, did obviously workers are only going to have 25% of the needed purchasing power to consume the goods and services they are producing. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when production output increases at a much faster rate than income? how can you achieve equilibrium when under capitalism it is impossible for workers to actually earn enough money to be able to consume all of what they produce?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@IndoorNewb , who said anything about everyone achieving comparable levels of success, health, wealth, Etc? Where did you ever get an idea like that from? You just take that assumption and then projected onto the speaker?
There's nothing natural about capitalism. I don't know where you got that idea from either. Socialism is natural and conforms to Nature.
You think it's natural for a small minority of people to own the product of the labour of most of the people on the planet? You think it's possible for a person the natural world to be able to convert their labour energy into a billion dollars? Dude, even with the most modern, advanced labor-saving technology, even if you could convert your labour energy into enough wealth where you could save $200,000 a year, it would take you no less than five thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars.
There are billionaires out there that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per second while they're sleeping just from their Capital Holdings! There's nothing natural about that.
Socialism is natural because people are only entitled to the wealth that they actually work for. And keep in mind that labour includes both mental and physical efforts. So all of the inventions, all of the technology that we have, all of the knowledge we have, that all came from labour. Capitalism is not about working for a living. It's about capitalizing on other people's labour like a parasite.
2
-
@carad2008 , you honestly believe capitalism is the best we can ever achieve? Capitalism is economic feudalism. Most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. Obviously you should get most of the wealth produced by your labour, not someone else. You don't need capitalism in order to have a business, to have a market, to have production, to have people selling and trading with one another, Etc. so I don't know why you think it's the best we could ever do. Capitalism is more of a religion than an economic system. It violates basic Market principles. However, socialism is more conducive to a free market in thriving economy because wealth actually stays with the workers and communities. Wages are commensurate with production output. Therefore equilibrium can be achieved, which is one of the central goals of economics. How can you achieve equilibrium under capitalism when production output increases at many times faster than income? Jobs are tied to consumption. The consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. But obviously if production is increasing at a faster rate than wages, workers are not going to be able to afford all the things they produce. That's why there's so much death and why the interest rates are so low. Capitalism doesn't even make any sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Didn't explain anything to? Well, under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by Labour. They also get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. However, when workers own their own businesses and factories, they get most of the benefits.
simply put, community-owned and worker-owned businesses are better for communities and workers. Capitalist companies are better for capitalist. When workers don't have options, when they are dependant upon billionaire corporations for jobs in consumer codes, that drives wages downward. And that's not conducive to a free market and thriving economy because when you erode purchasing power the economy contracts. When you increase purchasing power, the economy expands. If most of the wealth is going to someone else other than the workers, then the workers are not going to be able to afford the goods and services they are producing. The consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. You have a domino effect a downward spiral. And then the competition among the unemployed Drive wages even lower.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner ,FEE? That's like quoting the ministry of Truth. Infowars has more credibility.
Have you noticed that all of your comments are in line with the talking points disseminated by prageru? Is that a coincidence? Maybe that's where you got your master's degree, yes?
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Turvalon , here is an example of socialism at the micro-level. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
the workers collectively own the resources and the means of production. They have sovereignty. Sovereignty means no higher authority. They don't have to worry about some boss or dictator taking away their job, moving their job to China, telling them what they can or can't wear, forcing them to work in unsafe working conditions, Etc.
Fascism is the complete opposite! Under fascism, the leader is endowed with almost god-like power! And the citizens are disposable. They aren't subordinate to the state. Under socialism, the people are in control of the state from the bottom up. Again, the workers have sovereignty. There is no higher authority. Communism is when you move even further to the left than that, having completely eliminated the state, class and monetary system.
I could recommend several textbooks if interested
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , you're still not making an argument. You can't support your claims so instead you go around trolling? How can you do that and then get angry at lobotomized? You don't see him engaging in such behavior. This is what you do all the time and then you lie accusing other people of doing it! What's wrong with you? Why do you need to be such a liar and a hypocrite? You get angry at me just because you can't support your claims?
Do at least now acknowledge that all wealth comes from mixing labor with capital? Do you accept the fact that without labor Capital would be dead? Yes, of course there's natural gifts from nature such as apples, but do you now accept that you cannot have a capitalist company such as Walmart or Amazon without labor? Yes or no?
The things you say simply don't make any sense.
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , I'm actually going to add this comment to your list of intelligent statements. Yeah, the Invisible Hand works just fine. 😀
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , can't you get anything right? How can your comprehension abilities be so poor?
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
@donrastar1579 , well maybe it would be easier for you to comprehend what I'm saying if I provide you with dictionary and encyclopedia references?
What is socialism?
• "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
~ ~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary
~ ~ Durlauf, Steven N.; E. Blume, Lawrence. "socialism". DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS. Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
~ ~ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital."
What is the difference between a capitalist company & a socialist company?
1. Socialist companies are cooperatively owned.
Capitalist companies are privately owned.
2. At socialist companies there is no employee-employer dynamic.
The workers are their own bosses. They all get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, etc.
3. At socialist companies workers own the product of their labour.
At capitalist companies workers do not own the product of their labour, everything they produce belongs to someone else.
4. Organization is either bottom up or horizontal.
Capitalism is a hierarchical, top-down system of organization.
5. Socialist companies are democratic. That means that the participants in economic institutions (e.g. factories, stores and universities) decide on the policy of the institution. economic democracy.
Capitalist companies are extremely undemocratic; you do what you're told, or else! And most things end up being made in countries such as China.
6. The workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit.
7. Equality: at socialist companies everyone is equal in terms of voting power. One share equals one vote.
At a capitalist company workers don't have any voting power at all. That's why during the labour movement so many people fought and died for the right to unionize.
2
-
What are you talkin about? Socialist companies are more in line with human nature. That's why statistically speaking workers are happier, more productive, more creative, there's less incidence of mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, etc. There are numerous studies that show that when workers have control over their own lives and labour, they have much better Mental Health. But when you work at a capitalist company, where the boss gets to dictate when you work, how hard you work, what you can wear, when you get to eat, even when you get to go to the washroom and for how long, that's not exactly conducive to human Mental Health. Probably one of the reasons why the United States is number one when it comes to mental disorders. According to the Journal of psychiatry, almost 25% of the American population is suffering from some form of mental illness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@akhjanyerkin4833 , capitalism creates a central Authority. The richest 1% control most of the capital on the planet. Whoever controls the capital controls the people and the government. There's no such thing as a free market under capitalism. Why do you think most things are made in China? Why do you think the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 91% of the American population? 😃
Capitalism creates a situation where more than 90% of the population doesn't own the product of its labour. You know what it means when you don't own the product of your labour? You are basically a Slave. We're talking about a level of tyranny not even seen in Soviet Russia. The boss gets to decide when you work, how hard you work, what you can and cannot wear, whether or not you get a coffee break, when you get to eat, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. Capitalism has domesticated 90% of the population. Yes, wage slavery is different than chattel slavery. It's free-range slavery. 🙂
Socialism is more conducive to free markets and thriving economies. If you really believed in free markets and people being rewarded for hard work, then you would be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist.
Yeah, just because there's worker cooperatives within the capitalist framework, that's not a justification for capitalism. They were private businesses in Soviet Russia and under feudalism. Is that a justification for feudalism? There was massive increases in Innovation during the antebellum South, is that a justification for slavery?
Unfortunately under the capitalist system the vast majority of people will never be in a position where they can own their own means of production because most of the capitalist owned by the richest members of society. That's what makes most people depended upon capitalists for jobs and consumer goods. That was the purpose of the enclosure movement. People were driven into extreme states of dependency with violent Force. That's what capitalism needed in order to gain access to working-class slaves.
2
-
Of course capitalism lowers people's work options. Why do you think most things are made in China? It's because under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. As a consequence, they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. That's why the richest 1% have almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population! The two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population and the 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
That's what we call economic feudalism. A plutocracy. Rule by money.
Capitalism is an immoral system that's based on exploitation. It's not about working for a living, it's about owning for a living. Every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who owns rather than Works, somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar but they don't get. As capital accumulation increases, we seeing less and less of the GDP going to workers.
But of course capitalism decreases and restricts people's working options. That should be obvious. It should also be obvious that when you're an employee at a capitalist company and don't own the product of your labour, then you are what they call a wage slave. You have to produce more wealth that you actually get paid for. You're basically no different than human livestock. Just like a dairy cow, if you were to give that cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't get twice the amount of Milk. The Cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. All of that milk belongs to the farmer. Likewise, the vast majority of everything made on Earth does not belong to those workers who produce it. That's why labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours under the system. With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour but workers remained depended upon a 40-hour work week in order to survive. That's why there's so many useless jobs.
And since workers do not get paid the full value of their labour under capitalism, there's always going to be more goods and services in circulation than workers can afford to buy. So it's only a matter of time before consumption slows. When consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Those unemployed people that have to compete with one another for the remaining jobs. It's that competition that keeps wages down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nastasedr , dude, you're obviously not familiar with the enclosure movement or the transition to capitalism. That transition was extremely violent and bloody. There's a reason why capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. People had to be driven off of their land with Force before they would consider renting themselves out.
Yes, capitalism is a modern form of slavery. Workers do the work but only get paid a fraction of the wealth that their labour produces. That creates a serious problem when it comes to maintaining equilibrium within the market. one of the central goals of economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you do that if wages are not commensurate with production output? If workers only get 25% of the wealth from the goods and services they produce, then they're only going to be able to afford 25% of the products in circulation. How do you maintain jobs through consumption? You can't. The more wealth you extract from labour, the less workers can afford to buy. It's a pyramid scheme. Why do you think we still have the 40 Hour Work Week even though productivity levels has more than tripled since 1950?
It's like when you give bovine growth hormone to a cow in order to double milk production. Does the cow end up with twice the amount of milk? Does the cow get to work half as many hours? No. The farmer end up with twice the amount of milk. Likewise, give labor-saving technology doubles production, that increase wealth goes to the owners of capital. That's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction in working hours.
any erosion of purchasing power has to be offset with increased access to credit. Otherwise, consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Unemployed people have to compete with one another and that drives the value of Labor down even further. However, would you increase purchasing power, then the economy expands.
maybe some labour history would be helpful:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
"The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence."
when you work as an employee, the boss tells you when you work, how hard you have to work, Etc. they can cut your wages, your working hours, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
From <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith>
2
-
@nastasedr , I was using 25% as an example to make a point. Yes, of course there are risks when you open up a company, it doesn't matter whether the company is socially owned or privately owned.
again, the argument is that worker-owned companies and factories are better for workers and communities. They are more conducive to a free market in thriving economy because wealth and control stays with the workers. When the workers have more purchasing power, they can spend more into the economy. However, when it comes to capitalist companies, they want to maximize profit. How do they do that? By maximizing production output while simultaneously keeping costs as low as possible. that includes wages. But that creates a disparity between purchasing power and the goods and services in circulation. One of the reasons why there's so much debt and why interest rates are so low. Pumping credit into the system keeps things running temporarily. But the interest attached do the debt only serves to reduce purchasing power even further in the future. You cannot have continuous expansion on a finite planet. It's no longer necessary for people to work 40 hours a week in order to produce all the goods and services needed by Society. The only reason people are working 40 hours a week now is because capitalism is driven wages down so low people need to work that many hours in order to survive.
. have a few textbooks I would recommend that you read. They should be available at your Public Library.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital00mich
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles https://tinyurl.com/y6xqz7cw
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge. . ISBN 978-0415241878.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882 .
2
-
@nastasedr , worker-owned companies are not capitalist. Merely selling the product of your labour is not capitalism. if you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and you sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Also, markets are not unique to capitalism.
Yes, of course people can get together and start a business if they have the means to do so. But no, you can't say nothing is stopping people. You obviously don't understand how capitalism works. Capitalism is dependant upon people being an extreme state of dependency. That's why it didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. If you remove that state of dependency, then capitalism would cease to exist. If you could get the full value of your labour, would you work for a company such as Walmart or Amazon? no. Of course not.
There's a socially on break Factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. That's because they own the product of their labour. When you're an employee, not only do you have to follow orders like a dog, you end up doing all the work while someone else gets a big chunk of the money. They call it wage slavery for a reason. Anyway, economic democracies are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. Capitalism is not a viable system. Violates basic market and economic principles. one of the reasons why Adam Smith was a anti-capitalist. He pointed out that the division of labour would reduce the working class to a bunch of mindless idiots. I would recommend getting some of Richard Wolff text books and Studying his material.
And what's this idea of using Force? where did you get that idea from? An economic democracy provides more freedom. It removes centralized concentrations of power and authority. Richard Wolff is talking about a democratic, non-hierarchical bottom-up system of organization. There's no Force. Just the opposite. You don't even understand the argument.
Yeah, that's right, if we had equal opportunity, then worker cooperatives would win out. Obviously. there's a reason why 44% of the GDP comes from worker cooperatives in some regions of Europe. If you have the option of getting the full value of your labour, If You Can Be Your Own Boss, if you have equal voting power at your place of employment, would you instead choose to work at a dictatorship for a fraction of what your labour is worth? No, I don't think so. The vast majority of people are not in a position to start their own company or cooperative because capitalism as them in the state of dependency. Most people live from Check to Check and are scared to death of losing their jobs. something like 60% of the American population can't even afford a $400 emergency. They're afraid of going bankrupt from an unexpected a medical emergency even though they have health insurance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Worker cooperatives are being formed all the time. We just need to increase the rate by making it easier for people to get access to the capital and tools they need. We also need to make people more aware of these alternatives.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪︎ Here is an example of two employee-owned companies in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
▪︎ Here is Mondragon, a Federation of 120 companies, owned and run by the workers! 100,000 employees, 25 billion annual sales! They own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, factories, they even have their own social programs and safety-net! Those Research Laboratories are so advanced that Intel, Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company actually pays them to conduct research and solve problems on their behalf!
https://youtu.be/8ZoI0C1mPek
Mondragon through a critical lens https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049
▪︎ Maybe you could get together with your family and friends and start your own cooperative? 10 steps https://canada.coop/en/programs/co-op-development/how-start-co-op
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world. There's one place in Spain where over 100,000 people own their own factories, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Hospital, Etc.
Worker-owned companies are more efficient, more productive, workers are healthier, more creative, take you or sick days, Etc.
Here's a multi-billion-dollar capitalist business owner that sold 50% of his company to his employees. What was the result? Did that decrease efficiency and economic success? Nope. Just the opposite. The results were so staggering he's actually going to give the other 50% of the company to his employees!
https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE
There are studies in data going back well over a hundred years! We know exactly how well socialist companies compare to capitalist Enterprise
2
-
2
-
2
-
@perrymason866 , you honestly think anyone can start a co-op under capitalism? 44% of Americans with health insurance can't even afford to go to the doctor. 55% of the population can't even afford to miss one paycheck. Where do you think they're going to get millions of dollars of capital from? Or do you think people are going to be able to compete on a small scale, say selling coffee in competition with someone like Starbucks who can get their beans for a fraction of the price because they have a monopoly on slave labour?
44% of the population in the USA makes $18,000 a year or less. If it were so easy for people to start an alternative, don't you think they would? Do you have any idea how many of these people commit suicide every year because they're trapped at their low-wage job that only affords them barely enough to survive? Obviously creating an alternative to wage slavery is not that easy.
there are socialized bread factories in the United States where people get paid $65,000 a year for putting braids into a bag! If people could create that alternative easily, if everyone could get the full value of their labour, do you think the mass majority of the population would be working for subsistence wages at a company such as Walmart or Amazon? So according to you they must do it out of free will or stupidity? Yeah, makes perfect sense. I could get paid $65,000 a year pretty braids into a bag, or I could work I'm miserable position for $18,000 a year. I'm going to choose the $18,000 a year because secretly I love to do more work for Less pay.
2
-
2
-
@perrymason866 , and your statement about government intervention leading to murder, that doesn't make any sense. There has been massive government intervention in countries such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Etc. You don't see them committing mass murder. However, you have capitals countries such as Saudi Arabia that routinely executes children for being gay.
Capitalism requires State intervention. Without State intervention we would still have child labour, slavery, people selling children on the market, Etc. Do you know what life was like under capitalism before State intervention? you had 14 year old children working 16 hours a day 7 days a week, you had people dying from water and food contamination, there was no 8-hour workday, no safety regulations, no consumer safety regulations, no age pensions, no minimum wage, no right to bargain or unionize, Etc. LOL
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , dude, to say that there would be no free world without NATO, that's just not rational. Do you have any idea how many foreign policy experts, political scientist, international law experts, people such as Norm Chomsky, have explained over and over again that there was no need for nato in the first place and that we certainly do not need NATO now. These individuals explain that this whole concept of NATO being responsible for the free world is nothing more than ruling class and capitalist propaganda.
Putin went into Ukraine because he was forced to do so. There's numerous videos on YouTube where are the fascist elements of the Ukrainian Army openly admits they instigated the war with East Ukraine, killing over 14,000 people, hundreds of innocent children. You seen the memorial setup for those children? It is a matter of public record that the United States assisted in the coup and Ukraine back in-2014. How can you not know that that's when the war was started? Putin is putting an end to the war, he didn't start one.
You simply don't know what you're talkin about. You are reiterating propaganda disseminated by government agencies at the top of the Apex to the corporate media that control most of the information flow.
I don't mean to be rude but your comments are extremely ignorant.
2
-
2
-
@dionmcgee5610 , you don't actually believe that, do you? Russia is not targeting innocent women and children. It sounds like that same propaganda we used against Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, throwing children out of incubators, Etc. In actuality, a lot of foreign policy experts are wondering why Putin is going in so soft. Putin could easily do to the Ukraine what the America did to Iraq. But Russia is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties and necessary damage to civilian infrastructure.
Us intelligence and NATO intelligence agencies release information to the media and the media just reports on it as if it were facts. You have any idea how many people in the CBC and the BBC News agencies used to work for NATO? Or have connections to Nato? Anyway, I've never seen so much ridiculous propaganda in all my life. Next they're going to be saying that Putin eats live babies for breakfast. 😀
I'm not a big fan of Putin because he's a capitalist and a right winger. But from what I can tell he's a very principled individual that actually cares about the well-being innocent civilians as well as his own countrymen. One of the reasons that the West because He restored Russia along with the quality of life of its citizens instead of selling out to American capitalists.
▪ Scott Ritter https://youtu.be/OSkpIq3T-Zc
▪ Douglas Macgregor https://youtu.be/mjaO5pWmG14
▪ Douglas Macgregor & Aaron Mate
https://youtu.be/NFngc_8RiVc
When the US puppet government was in control of Russia or the quality of life was horrible! Life expectancy dropped. Resources that used to go to the people we're going to Rich American capitalists. But Putin changed all that. And now the billionaire oligarchs in the United States hate Putin. And when Master hates someone, Master uses its immediate to get all of its subjects to also hate whoever they hate. It's really quite frightening how easily they can control the public mind. Back in nineteen twenty-nine what Edward Bernays said that we were going to be able to use propaganda to turn people on and off like light switches, a lot of individuals thought he was crazy. Not anymore. 😀
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who knows people that live in Russia.
"I live in a loft/studio apartment in a decent neighborhood and pay $850 in my city, Philadelphia. My daughter has a 3 bedroom house same city pays $1500 rent. My friend in Moscow has a whole house right outside the Kremlin pays $400."
But yeah, all you have to do is look at the public record and Declassified documents to see why the Americans and their allies hate Putin.
James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
"During the 1990’s, the US plundered Russia at will. Washington imposed a unipolar world, celebrated as the ‘New World Order’. They bombed and devastated former Russian allies like Yugoslavia and Iraq, setting up ethnically cleansed rump states like Kosovo for their huge military bases. Meanwhile, Washington reduced Russia, under the inebriate Yeltsin regime, to a backwater vassal stripped of its resources, its institutions, scientists, and research centers. In the absence of war, the Russian economy declined by 50% and life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The US celebrated this ‘victory of democracy’ over a helpless, deteriorating state by welcoming the most obscene new gangster oligarchs and pillagers and laundering their bloodstained loot.
The door slammed shut on the pillage with the election of Vladimir Putin and the demise of the Yeltsin gangster-government. Russia was transformed: Putin reversed Russia’s demise: The economy recovered, living standards rose abruptly; employment in all sectors increased, and cultural, educational and scientific centers were restored. Vladimir Putin was elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities of the Russian electorate despite huge sums of Western money going to his opponents. Russia systematically recovered many strategic sectors of the economy illegally seized by Western-backed Israeli-Russian oligarchs. Even more important, Putin restored Russian statecraft and diplomacy - formulating a strategy for an independent, democratic foreign policy and restoring Russia’s defense capability. The loss of this critical vassal state under its dipsomaniacal Boris Yeltsin shook the US EU-NATO alliance to its very core.
In the beginning President Putin did not oppose the US-NATO military invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It went along with the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. It even maintained its cooperation despite a US-sponsored attack by the government of Georgia against South Ossetia killing scores of Russian peacekeepers. In the wake of those destabilizing disasters, what finally led the Russian government to reverse its complicity with the West was the horrific US-financed invasion of Syria where Russian jihadis from the Caucasus were playing an important role as mercenaries, threatening to return and undermine the stability of Russia. This was quickly followed by the US-sponsored putsch in Ukraine, fomenting a civil war on Russia’s frontiers, threatening is vital naval base in Crimea and repressing millions of ethnic Russian - Ukrainian citizens in the industrialized Donbas region. These blatant aggression finally pushed Putin to challenge the expansionist policies of Washington and the EU."
Also, it's on public record regarding to what America had planned for Putin and Ukraine. There was the United States national security advisor who actually had the audacity to write a book about it 20 years ago! And then when people question him whether or not he would be fearful of public backlash, he openly admitted that there was no need to be concerned because the population is so easily controlled by the media. He pointed out that we control the media therefore we control public opinion. Adolf Hitler said the same thing!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Comparing the Iraq War to what Putin is doing in the Ukraine? Wow! I actually used to have a lot of respect for this channel. Not anymore.
What if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in Canada along the American Border? What if they had those weapons in Cuba and Mexico? What if Iraq was funding terrorist organizations within Canada, Cuba and Mexico, getting them to kill innocent American civilians, a total of 14000, along with 150 innocent children? What if America kept trying to negotiate for peaceful resolution for 8 years only existing peace agreements violated? Yeah, I think that might be a pretty good pretext to actually take military action. Foreign policy experts along with International lawyers have been warning us for eight years that eventually Putin would be forced to take military action if we continue doing what we're doing in the Ukraine. But sure, let's just compare Ukraine to Iraq.
▪ Noam Chomsky:
"In 2014, a Russia-supported government in Ukraine was forcefully removed from power by a coup supported by the U.S. and replaced by a U.S. and European-backed government. It was a development that brought closer to war the two main antagonists of the Cold War era, as Moscow regards both U.S. and European involvement in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued eastward expansion as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to encircle Russia.
The strategy of encirclement is indeed as old as NATO itself, and this is the reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin issued recently a list of demands to the U.S. and NATO with regard to their actions in Ukraine and even parts of the former Soviet space. In the meantime, senior-level Russian officials have gone even further by warning of military response if NATO continues to ignore Moscow’s security concerns. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a solvable problem, but one wonders if the U.S. will remain dedicated to a 'zombie policy' that could produce potentially awful consequences in the event of a diplomatic failure.
There’s more to add, of course. What happened in 2014, whatever one thinks of it, amounted to a coup with U.S. support that replaced the Russia-oriented government by a Western-oriented one. That led Russia to annex Crimea, mainly to protect its sole warm water port and naval base, and apparently with the agreement of a considerable majority of the Crimean population. There’s extensive scholarship on the complexities, particularly Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine and more recent work."
▪ "... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds.
▪ The United States formed NATO in 1949 with 11 countries in its own interest and with the aim of destroying the communist bloc. Today, NATO is engaged in creating terrorism in more than 30 countries around the world. The United States and NATO have opened shops around democracy and destroyed countless countries, large and small. They are not friends of anyone. They are bigots.
Why was NATO not dismissed in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded? The USSR, the CIA's deep conspiracy, was broken into pieces and then those pieces were gradually incorporated into NATO, lastly Ukraine. Attempts by NATO to destroy or pressure Russia, which is surrounded by NATO, are never acceptable. A war organization called NATO should be disbanded immediately. Then the world will return to balance. Get rid of NATO and save the world from nuclear annihilation.
▪ Former Top Pentagon advisor Col. Doug MacGregor on Russia Ukraine war
https://youtu.be/NFngc_8RiVc
2
-
2
-
2
-
Socialism has nothing to do with giving power the one person. Socialism is the opposite. It's a bottom-up system. That's why it's not prone to corruption. Capitalism is prone to corruption because it's a top-down system. It's an undemocratic hierarchical system that concentrates power and wealth at the top of the Apex. Those at the bottom are kept in the state of dependency and have virtually no control over their workplace environment.
In regards to Venezuela, you're engaging in extreme over-simplification and black and white thinking. United States has been at war with Venezuela for almost 19 years! Why don't you check out the National Security archive. Second, Venezuela is a capitalist country. The capitalist still have control. Something like 80% of industry is in the private sector, as with Healthcare and employment. the workers do not own and control their own labour and resources. So how can you call this Democratic socialism? :-) Democratic socialism is democratic! One worker gets one vote. That's democratic. Under capitalism the number of votes is determined by the number of shares you control. If you can afford a million shares, then you get a million votes! That's the opposite of democratic. That's autocratic! that's why when the shareholders vote to cut safety standards and poison the water supply, as we saw in Flint Michigan, they have the power to do it. the workers are helpless. when they voted to move production to China, again, the workers were left destitute! and that's why Democratic systems are far Superior to top-down dictatorships. and here you are, arguing in favour of plutocracy, while trying to convince people that Fighting For Freedom will lead to Armageddon!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lukemiller1385 , I didn't say that it's not possible for an average person to become a billionaire. I said it's extremely unlikely. I said the vast majority of people, especially people living in the United States, will die either at the same socioeconomic level they were born into, or lower. You need to realize that for every 1 billion are there has to be hundreds of thousands of people to support that wealth. In order to have two billionaires with more wealth than the poorest half of the American population, you have to have a lot of poverty. As a massive wealth expands in the hands of the few at the top of the Apex, poverty has to expand at the foundation. That's why the average American can no longer afford a family on a single income. As a consequence of having more billionaires we see more and more of the GDP that used to go to workers going to Capital owners. There's a dynamic there. A correlation.
I did anyway, what does any of that have to do with the argument? The argument that Richard Wolff is putting forth is very simple. Worker-owned Enterprises provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities compared to capitalist Enterprises. workers get to keep all of the well that their labour produces and they get to be their own bosses. People should only be entitled to the well that they generate with their own Labour. Living off of other people's labour, which is what capitalism is about, is immoral and parasitic. again, every time you have a dollar going to someone who didn't work for it, somewhere else you have someone who worked for a dollar that they don't get. Wealth just doesn't materialize out of thin air. it requires labour mixed with capital. also keep in mind that labour includes both mental and physical efforts. if you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. that is you converting your work, both mental and physical efforts, into a marketable product.
if you are really interested in free markets and people being properly compensated for their hard work, then you would be in support of socialism and against capitalism. capitalism is the economic system of parasites.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , yes, you're a master at debate and debunking. 😀
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
2
-
2
-
2
-
Socialism is economic democracy. Capitalism is economic feudalism.
economic democracy n.
Economic democracy means that the participants in economic institutions (e.g. factories, stores and universities) decide on the policy of the institution.
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public.
"Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
~ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital."
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andrewderksen3342 , yes, socialism is more conducive to Small Business Development, markets, thriving economies Etc. Capitalism destroy small businesses, markets, and economies.
Under capitalism people are forced to grab as much of the market share as possible. They want to maximize profits by increasing production output while decreasing wages. larger company's end up driving the smaller companies out of business. Workers don't have adequate purchasing power to buy all the goods and services that are producing. Jobs are tied to consumption. Consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Employed workers compete with one another for the remaining jobs. That competition drives the value of Labor down while again increasing production output. Consumption has to be maintained by increasing access to credit. That's why everybody's in debt.
However, if you increase the Cooperative sector, then you're basically keeping wealth with the workers and communities. Workers have more money to spend, the economy expands. That makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Scott Covert , why do actors get millions of dollars? For the same reason that Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. Workers are in the state of dependency because they don't have any alternative, that's they work for a fraction of the value of what their labour is actually worth. If you bought a Mercedes-Benz, would you pay $10 for the car and $40,000 for the Little Star on the hood of the vehicle?
Anyway, not only does capitalism require fractional Reserve Banking and a massive amount of personal debt in order to keep the system going, it also requires a massive amount of waste. when you go into McDonald's and you buy a hamburger for $2, do you know how much it's really costs? If you were to factor in the externalities, that hamburger would probably cost about 80 or $90! If you work 40 hours a week, probably 80 % of that ends up in the landfill! the other 20% ends up going to someone like Bill Gates, especially after you're done paying him for the privilege of being able to buy toilet paper and get a blood test. :-)
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials."
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , wow, your comprehension abilities must be non-existent.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
All forms of capital is a crony. What we have today is late-stage capitalism where economic power has too much control over the government, food, housing, the environment and all other forms of capital. That's the problem.
As soon as you put everything up for sale to the highest bidders, you end up with the richest members of society only most of the world. Those people who own the capital get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population and the 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
But all forms of capitalism crony. The goal of capitalist companies is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. That creates a situation where workers don't have adequate purchasing power to buy all the goods and services that they produce. For example, if 75% of the wealth goes to the top 1%, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of the goods and services they produce. Workers produce everything while being paid as little as possible. And then they have to go to the capitalist in order to get access to the very goods and services that they produced. The capitalist then charges in the maximum amount of money.
Capitalists are just unnecessary middlemen that increased the cost of living and the amount of work that the rest of us have to do.
2
-
2
-
@donrastar1579 , capitalism is not the only system that utilizes capital and Markets. That's not my opinion, that's a basic fact.
all wealth comes from mixing labor with capital. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and you sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Capitalism does not predate feudalism by thousands of years. Capitalism is only about 250 to 300 years of age. It was made possible by the enclosure movement.
Before you can evaluate which system is better, Socialism or capitalism, you have to first be able to differentiate between the two.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism: 1500-1980
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles .
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge. .
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105.
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ExPwner , no, you're the one that makes up their own reality. In this day and age no one should have to work 40 hours a week. We shouldn't even need to work 20 hours a week. Productivity levels have more than tripled since night 1950 but we still have a 40-hour work week and inflation has risen at a much greater Pace than wages.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
@ExPwner , no, I only put you down because you're an uneducated fool. You can't even get that right. You're also a liar and a hypocrite. And you know it. How does that make you feel? Your relationships must be very deep and meaningful.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JNM578 , but you see workers have virtually no bargaining power at all. With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. Decent paying jobs are becoming fewer and fewer. However, workers are becoming more and more desperate.
It wasn't too long ago that a new McDonald's opened up, offering about 400 jobs. the number of applicants within the first hour were well into the thousands. and a lot of those applicants actually had degrees and trade skills!
Workers are constantly being replaced with labor-saving technology. They end up on the unemployment line where they have to compete with other unemployed people. That extreme competition Drive the value of Labor down. Whoever is willing to do the most work for the least amount of money, Whoever has the most education, that is the person who's going to get the job. Bargaining power for the vast majority of the people in Canada in the United States is almost zero. Unless you have some highly specialized training.
At a worker Cooperative the workers have sovereignty. They get to decide who the managers are. You see, it's like a symphony orchestra. the orchestra can choose the director. the director helps guide the orchestra. But he's not a dictator. The symphony / workers can remove him at any point in time. the workers are the ones that ultimately get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. They don't have to worry about being forced to poison their own water supply like those workers in Flint Michigan. You don't have to worry about being threatened with production being moved offshore. Etc. workers all across the United States are constantly agreeing willingly to reduce wages under threat of production being moved offshore. if workers do decide to unionize, then capitalist can shut down a factory in one area well getting supplies somewhere else
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nayanmipun6784 , under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They also get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China.
Capitalism is about owning for a living. It's the idea of collecting wealth without actually having to work. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. No work required. for example, For example, there is a person who won the lottery last year where i live. he won 60 million dollars. That money is currently sitting in a bank account. He is getting 3% interest on that 60 million.
That comes to 1.8 million dollars a year.
That's $150,000 per month.
That's $35,000 per week.
that's $5,000 a day.
That's $200 an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year, for the rest of their life, until the day they die. and they will pass that privilege onto every child they have and every woman that they marry.
now let's look at Jeff Bezos. He has about 200 billion dollars now. So, hypothetically speaking, if he were to dump all of his Capital assets and just put that money into the bank account at 3% interest, he would be accumulating 6 billion dollars per year for doing absolutely nothing.
That's 500 million dollars a month.
That's a 115 million dollars per week.
That's 16 and 1/2 million dollars per day.
that's 685,000 per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
How long does it take you to use the washroom? Let's say it takes you 1 minute to take a dump. by the time Jeff Bezos takes a dump, he has an extra $12,000 in his bank account. 😃
where do you think that money comes from? Every dollar of that has to come from labour. Every time you take out a student loan, every time you buy toilet paper, a toothbrush, finance a house, a car, Etc. you have to pay some rich individual for that privilege. He gets to collect that amount of money without doing any work at all. And, unless he's actually capable of spending $600,000 an hour, with every passing hour, he'll be making more money than he did before.
capitalism is the economic system of parasites. now when it comes to socialism, democratic workplaces, then you truly get rewarded for your contribution. you get the full value of your labour. for example, there's a socially on bread factory in the United States where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. that's because the own the product of their labour. however, and assembly line worker at a capitalist company would be lucky to make a bit more of the minimum wage. That's because they do not own the product of their labour. It doesn't matter if they make $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product. Most of that money goes to the owner of the company.
2
-
@nayanmipun6784 , under the capitalist system most people will remain in the state of dependency due to no fault of their own. Again, most of the wealth ends up going to people that don't work. That's why we now have a situation where the two richest people have more wealth in the poorest half of the US population. The eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. It's not possible for a person to convert their labour energy into a billion dollars. Even if you made $100,000 a year it would take you no less than 10,000 years to accumulate a billion dollars. Every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who doesn't work, somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. That's why we still have a 40-hour work week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. Capitalism is the economic system of parasite it is economic feudalism. Economic democracy is more conducive to innovation, free markets and thriving economies. Capitalism squanders most of the resources and human potential. Most people don't even get a chance to go to school. 80% of the world's population subsists on less than $10 a day. One child dies every 15 seconds from starvation even though we throw away 1.2 billion tons of food and relief in order to maintain prices artificially within the capitals Market because the more there is a something the less it's worth. If food cannot be sold, it's thrown away, regardless of how many starving people there are. Under capitalism markets do not supply demand they Supply what people can afford. So if something becomes scarce, like milk, the Market will supply the cats average people before it supplies the children of poor people. The ruling class loves capitalism because scarce resources get allocated to the 1%
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Workers don't all get paid the same at socialist companies. People get paid according to their contribution. The ratio between the highest and lowest paid worker usually no more than 7 to 1. That's because regardless of your education, how talented you are, how hard you work, how fast you work, it's generally not possible for a person to convert their labour energy into 7 times more wealth then someone else, even a janitor! Yes, of course the janitor is going to produce less value compared to Someone Like An engineer. But the most important thing is that the janitor gets one hundred percent labour value. At a capitals company workers cannot get 100% of their labour value. They're lucky if they get 5 or 10%.
You see, capitalism is about owning for living. That's why people can accumulate billions of dollars. Obviously it's not possible for a person to convert their labour energy into that much wealth. Even if you could save $200,000 a year, it would take you no less than 5000 years to accumulate 1 billion dollars. Where do you think that money comes from? It has to come from labour. Anytime you have someone who extract more than what they produce, then it has to come at the expense of someone else. Or put another way, anytime you have someone who ends up with a dollar that they didn't work for, somewhere else you have someone who work for dollars if they don't get.
Why do you think it is we still have to work 40 hours a week even though labor-saving technology by more than half? It's because just about everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. Just like if you give a dairy cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of Milk. The Cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. The cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of wealth. It All Belongs to the farmer. That's why we still have to work 40 hours a week and why the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. And the eight bridges people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
Not only do the owners of capital get most of the wealth, they also get to make most of the decisions and regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. Economic feudalism. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low.
Anyway, here is a socially owned bread factory and Robotics Factory in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ like I said, there's hundreds of thousands I'm socially owned factories and companies around the world. There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies. Almost 60% of United States gets electricity from worker-owned Electrical Cooperatives.
1
-
@LL-wc4wn , my pleasure.
Here's another video that discusses the popularity, efficiency and durability of worker-owned companies in the United States compared to capitalist companies.
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
Also, there is no shortage of studies on worker cooperatives. These Studies have shown that workers are happier, more efficient, more creative, more productive, take fewer sick days, have less incidence of substance abuse, mental illness, depression, suicide, Etc.
Did you know that the United States is number one in the world for mental illness?
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
"The Whitehall Study | Unhealthy Work"
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , no, workers don't get paid the full value of their labour when they work at capitalist companies. The less workers get paid, the more profit capitalist companies make.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. If a capitalist company can get away with paying workers a dollar a day, then, according to you, the workers are getting the full value of their labour. 😀 the point that Richard Wolff is making is that when the workers own the company then they get all of the wealth that the company produces. Not just a portion of it.
Your comments never make any sense. You can't even formulate an argument. I guess that's why your constantly plagiarizing me and creating Straw Men.
On one end you're trying to claim that capitalist companies are better for workers. But on the other end, you point out that workers have to accept whatever the boss is willing to pay. 😀 but that's one of the main arguments for worker-owned companies. The workers are their own boss. They don't have a capitalist boss dictating how much they get paid, what they have to wear, how hard they have to work, what they have to produce, when they have to produce it, Etc.
You still don't understand the argument? You, by far, are the slowest person I've ever talked to. You think that after two years that you would finally figure out what the argument is about and be able to make a counter argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LL-wc4wn , everybody being equally wealthy? What are you talkin about? People don't all get paid the same in a socialist economy. People get paid according to their contribution. There's hundreds of thousands of socialist companies in the United States and around the world. People don't get paid the same. The disparity between the highest and and lowest paid workers generally is no greater than 7 to 1. And that's because no one is capitalizing on anyone else's labour. You see, that's the difference between socialism and capitalism. Under socialism people are doing their own work. They have to work for their wealth. But capitalism is about capitalizing on other people's labour. That's why you can have one person accumulating billions of dollars. But when people actually are only entitled to that which they work for. You can accumulate a billion dollars. That's because it's impossible for a person to convert their labour energy into that much wealth. Even if you could save $200,000 a year after expenses, it would take you no less than five thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars. You see, anytime you have someone extracting more than what they contribute, it has to come at the expense of someone else. That's why there's so many poor people under capitalism. That's why the richest 1% now have almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. But you don't have that problem under socialism because people are only entitled to that which they work for. So if you look at those socialist companies in the United States, you will see that people earn more money because they are either more talented, work faster, or are more skilled. The thing is that get to keep 100% of the wealth that your labour produces because no one else is capitalizing on your labour for profit. That's why an assembly line worker can make $70,000 a year at a socialist bread factory but only about 20,000 a year at a company such as Walmart or Amazon
1
-
1
-
@LL-wc4wn , and no, socialist company is not capital. A capitalist company is privately owned and utilizes wage labour for profit. You have an employer-employee dynamic. Master-servant, if you will. But a socialist company is collectively owned by the workers directly. Not a stock option. Each worker controls one share. They cannot control more than one share. And the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit.
An economy is capitalist when most of the GDP is coming from privately-owned companies that utilize wage labour for profit. If most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies, then the economy is socialist.
The argument is that socialism is better for workers, communities and the economy. You don't have to worry about bosses blackmailing workers to work in unsafe working conditions. You don't have to worry about them blackmailing workers to pollute the environment. You don't have to worry about the boss moving production to a different country. You don't have to worry about nepotism or corruption.
And when the wealth goes to the workers, the workers spend that money into the economy. The economy expands. There's more demand for things such as Pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. But when most of the wealth ends up going to billionaires, that money gets spent on things such as going to space, buying politicians, buying lobbyists, buying lawyers, buying accountants, and buying more capital which results in the purchasing power of workers being reduced even further. If you have to pay Bill Gates earn extra $10 every time you get a blood test or utilize something like electricity, that's 10 less dollars you have to spend in the economy buying goods and services from other workers. That causes the economy to contract.
You see, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Therefore there has to be a balance between production output and income. Jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Then the competition between unemployed people drives the wages down even further while increasing production output. That creates an even greater disparity.
You see, the goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible. So the more successful a capital company is, the less purchasing power workers have.
But when workers own their own factories and businesses, you don't have that problem because the income of the workers is commensurate to the amount of value they produce with their labour.
And that's why socialism is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. The more successful capitalist companies are, the more they destroy the economy.
Competition tends towards monopoly. Owners accrue capital at the top but extract it from labour at the bottom. Large enterprises enter, disrupt, and even decimate communities, often leaving workers holding the bag, worse off than they were before.
Here's an example of a socially owned bread factory and Robotics company in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
@LL-wc4wn , you are asking me what happens to people? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Your business is yours. Just because certain workers collectively own their own companies and factories, that doesn't preclude you from doing what you want with your business. Actually, when you increase the Cooperative sector in the economy, that makes it easier for people to start their own private businesses because there's more demand. Just like when so many companies were unionized in the United States there was a surge of growth because workers had so much more money to buy stuff with. You had people opening up coffee shops, restaurants, inventing things such as the hula hoop and the Rubik's Cube, etc.
Second, you need to understand that merely selling the product of one's labour is not capitalism. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and you sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. That's why cooperatives are not capitalist. There are multimillion-dollar cooperatives that sell everything from robots to Ocean Spray cranberry juice. Did you know Ocean Spray is a cooperative? Anyway, the point is, the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. So if you get together with your friends and family and make a multimillion-dollar company, that's not capitalism. Not unless you're making your grandmother do all or most of the work while keeping a portion of the wealth that her labour produces. 😀
Yes, if you your family creates a multimillion-dollar company, you could convert it into a capitalist company because there's no shortage of poor desperate over-educated workers that will work for low wages. So technically speaking, you and your family members could just sit at home and hire other people to do the work while paying the workers as little as possible. Then you would have a capitalist company. Actually, funny that you mention it, there's a lot of capitalist companies that started out that way. There's this one guy here in Canada that gave half of his company back to the workers because he feels so guilty. A capitalist with a conscience. :-) https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE
1
-
1
-
@LL-wc4wn , well then maybe the maker of the video was mistaken about Ocean Spray. But that does not negate the fact that there's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies in the United States and around the world. Like this. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
And like this https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
Yes, of course the workers at cooperatives get paid a wage. There's a socially on bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year. Again, like I already explained, the workers are 100% of the wealth that their labour produces. When you work at a capitalist company, you cannot get 100% of the wealth that your labour produces. That's why so many people prefer to work at socialist companies. How much does an assembly line worker make at Walmart or Amazon? Maybe twenty thousand a year. But when you're working at a simple bread factory, like the example in that video that I showed you, the workers are making 70000 a year. And what's going to create more demand in the market? Somebody was $70,000 with a purchasing power or someone with $20,000 worth of purchasing power? That's why socialist companies are more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy.
Like I already explained earlier, people all don't get make the same amount of money at cooperatives. And of course their Democratic. One worker equals one vote.
So you have to ask yourself, do you like working under a boss or Would You Rather Be Your Own Boss? Would you prefer to get 100% of the wealth that your labour produces? Or would you prefer to get a portion of it? Do you really want to lose years of your life making money for someone else? Obviously no one in their right mind wants to work an 8-hour day will only getting paid for two. Obviously if you're going to be doing 100% of the work you should be getting a hundred percent of the wealth.
But anyway, each to their own. If you prefer a system where most of the wealth doesn't go to the workers but goes to the owners of capital so that we have a handful of billionaires owning most of the wealth on the planet and most of the capital, that's up to you. Doesn't make any sense to me..
Oh, and like I already mentioned. Merely filling the product of one's labour is not capitalism. If you own a farm collectively with a group of people and you sell the product of your labour, that is not capitalism. If you write a book and you sell it it in the market. That is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and you sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is about capitalizing on other people's labour. You get Workers to do the work for you and then you pay them as little as possible keep it as much of the money for yourself as possible. That's capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , you don't know anything about US labor history. 😀 Antitrust laws were enacted in the United States to prevent monopolistic practices and promote fair competition in markets, as capitalism leads to the concentration of market power in the hands of a few dominant firms. competition -> winners -> competition between winners -> stronger winners -> ..
Capitalism gravitates toward monopoly for many reasons:
1. Economies of Scale: In many industries, larger companies can produce goods or services more efficiently and at a lower cost per unit. This makes it difficult for smaller competitors to compete, leading to the consolidation of market power in the hands of a few large firms.
2. Barriers to Entry: Monopolies or oligopolies arise when there are significant barriers to entry in an industry, such as high startup costs, access to distribution channels, or intellectual property protection. These barriers can discourage new competitors from entering the market.
3. Network Effects: Some industries, like social media or telecommunications, exhibit network effects. The more users a platform or network has, the more valuable it becomes. This creates a winner-takes-all scenario, where a single dominant player emerges.
4. Mergers and Acquisitions: Large companies acquire or merge with smaller competitors, further concentrating market power.
5. Regulatory Capture: Powerful corporations can influence or capture regulatory agencies, shaping regulations in their favor. This allows them to stifle competition or maintain their dominant position in the market.
6. Innovation and Patents: Companies with significant resources can invest in research and development and secure patents, protecting their innovations from competition for a certain period. This leads to monopolistic advantages in technology-driven industries.
And the list goes on and on. Can you imagine how bad things would be if we didn't have antitrust laws and regulations?
Some of the key antitrust laws in the United States today include:
1. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890: This law prohibits certain business activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace.
2. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914: This law addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition.
3. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914: This established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws and protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive practices.
4. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936: This law prohibits price discrimination that substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly.
These laws, along with subsequent amendments and legal interpretations, form the foundation of antitrust regulation in the United States.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremyrangel8138 , because it's simply not true for most people. You're committing a fallacy in reasoning logic. You are committing the oversimplification and bifurcation fallacy.
Dude, over 40 million Americans are on food stamps because their source of employment doesn't provide enough income. Well over 60% of Americans live from check to check can't even afford to miss one week of work.
I used to work on the crisis line. Everyday I would get dozens of calls from suicidal people that feel hopeless and trapped. For example,
"Well, the house I live in is now on the market. Where do I go next? Where can I go that is not atrociously expensive, where I can actually make a decent living?
I'm so tired of the constant fear of homelessness and unemployment. It makes living an unhappy affair."
Workplace suicides in the US are up 39% since 2000. The US suicide rate is the highest of any wealthy country.
Do you have any idea what job in security does to a person's mental health? Do you not know why the United States is number one when it comes to mental illness? Seriously?
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. That number 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
Millions of workers in “the world’s wealthiest country” are forced to sell their blood in order to survive. The Washington Post featured a 41-year-old teacher with a $50,000 salary who sells plasma twice per week to get by. “I never thought I would be in a position where I would have to sell my plasma to feed my children,” said Christina Seal of Slidell, Louisiana. “I’ve applied for every government program that I can think of. I don’t qualify for food stamps, I don’t qualify for any programs.” The Post explained that plasma donations “have quadrupled since 2006.”
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derektomlinson6514 , of course. China has a top-down government. Their economy is based on a combination of privately owned and government-owned Enterprises.
There are three main types of ownership:
you have private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), and you have communism (no class, money or state). Communism comes from the word community. It works like this: https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans (create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheEMC99 , also, capitalism leads to slavery. Collectivism leads to Independence and prosperity.
Under capitalism most of the capital is owned and controlled by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by Labour and they get to control the economy. Under socialism the workers control the economy. under capitalism the ruling class controls the economy.
There are hundreds of thousands of community-owned and worker-owned companies and factories in the United States and around the world. Those types of workplaces are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy because wealth and control stays with the workers and the community. When you increase purchasing power of workers, the economy expands because workers can buy more stuff.
however, capitalism erodes purchasing power. The imperative under capitalism is to maximize profits. The way that is done is by increasing production output as much as possible while keeping wages as low as possible. But that creates a situation where workers cannot afford the very goods and services they are producing. Basically, capitalism violates basic market and economic principle. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Therefore you cannot have an economic system where production output is increasing at a faster rate than wages. Put it another way, if you have to bake 10 loaves of bread just so you can afford one loaf, where does the purchasing power come from to buy the other 9 loaves? debt!
community-owned workplaces do not have that problem because wages are actually commensurate with production output.
for example, there is a socially own bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year. they're able to make that much money because they own the product of their labour. when you do not own the product of your labour then you are nothing more than human livestock. just like if you were to double milk production of a cow using bovine growth hormone, that extra milk goes to the farmer. The cow doesn't get to work half as many hours or end up with twice the amount of income. likewise, it doesn't matter if an employee makes $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product. And assembly line worker will get paid close to minimum wage or as little as possible. They've basically made that money for someone else.
capitalism reduces 96% of the world's population to wage slavery. Being a slave is not freedom. working under a dictatorship Where someone else gets to keep most of the money that your labour produces, that is the opposite of freedom.
here's an example of to socially owned companies in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course free market capitalism doesn't exist. There's no such thing. I can't even imagine what capitalism would be like if it was unregulated. It would self-destruct within days. We came very close to practicing pure capitalism back in the late eighteen early nineteen hundreds. My God you want to talk about hell on Earth
The conservative refrain goes something like this: If only things were left to the free market and we liberated ourselves from government's meddlesome regulations, then we would see how beautifully a pure capitalism works.
"In fact, we did practice something close to a pure capitalism in 1893. The result was economic depression and widespread unemployment, nine-year-old children working fourteen-hour days, typhoid and cholera epidemics in Philadelphia and other eastern cities, malnutrition and tuberculosis, and contaminated water and food supplies for the poor.
We had uninhibited environmental devastation and horrible work conditions, no pension programs or minimum wage, no occupational or consumer safety regulations, no prohibitions against child labor, and no Social Security, collective bargaining, or industrial unionism. We had unrestrained monopolies and trusts – and enormously high profits.
Conditions in the United States in 1893 were not unlike what they are today through much of the Third World. But for the capitalists of that era, these dismal conditions were not seen as evidence of the system's failure. For them, capitalism in the good old days was working quite well. Success was measured not by the quality of food, drinking water, housing, schools, transportation, and health care, but by the rate of capital accumulation.
The function of capitalism then and now has been to invest capital in order to accumulate more capital, and in that sense the system has performed superbly, for those who own and control it.
Today, the conservative goal is the Third Worldization of America, to reduce the U.S. working populace to a Third World condition, having people work harder and harder for less and less. This includes a return to the "free market,” free of environmental regulations, free of consumer protections, minimum wages, occupational safety, and labor unions, a market crowded with underemployed labor, so better to depress wages and widen profit margins.
Conservatives also seek the abolition of human services and other forms of public assistance that give people some buffer against free-market forces. Underemployment is a necessary condition for Third Worldization. Alan Budd, professor of economics at the London Business School candidly observed (Observer, June 21, 1992) that the Thatcher government's cuts in public spending were a cover to bash workers: ”Raising unemployment was a very desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. What was engineered – in Marxist terms – was a crisis in capitalism, which recreated a reserve army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.” With underemployment and poverty come the return of turbeculosis, homelessness, and hunger, and a sharp increase in the number of people who work at nonunion, low-paying, dead-end poverty-level jobs.
The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create working class owning class dichotomy we're a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet and get most of the wealth.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the rich is 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access healthcare, education, etc.
▪ Here's an example of your reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vitolazlo5767 , what are you talkin about? The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is advocating provides a lot more freedom than capitalism. It's also more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy.
Freedom: obviously workers are going to have more freedom when they actually own their own company or factory. At a capitalist company you literally work at a dictatorship. The boss tells you what to wear, win to work, how hard you have to work, some even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
Equality: at socialist companies the workers have equal voting power. No one has more voting power than anyone else. Look at how many socialist companies that are in the United States that have that Democratic form of organization. Look at how successful those companies are, how productive there. The workers are happier, more creative, more efficient, take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, suicide, mental illness, Etc. There is no shortage of data to go by.
Prosperity: obviously socialist companies provide more prosperity for workers and communities compared to capitalist Enterprises. At a socialist company the workers get all of the wealth. At a capitalist company workers are paid as little as possible while push to produce as much as possible. The less workers make, the more profit there is for capitalists. So literally, the more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have. That's not conducive to a free-market are thriving economy. Jobs are tied to consumption. But when that money goes to the workers, they spend that money into the economy. They buy more pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. That makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses.
Why do you think it is that most socialist countries are subjected to economic imperialism and sanctions? Yeah, the capitalists do everything they can to destroy Alternatives and then claim that capitalism is the only system that works. I would recommend checking out the National Security archive just to see how many democracies the United States is overthrown just since 1945. If socialism was really so horrible, then the United States could just let those economies collapse on their own without doing everything they can to overthrow them.
1
-
@MJMilano7 , as I just stated to VITO LAZLO , The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is advocating provides a lot more freedom than capitalism. It's also more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy.
Freedom: obviously workers are going to have more freedom when they actually own their own company or factory. At a capitalist company you literally work at a dictatorship. The boss tells you what to wear, win to work, how hard you have to work, some even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
Equality: at socialist companies the workers have equal voting power. No one has more voting power than anyone else. Look at how many socialist companies that are in the United States that have that Democratic form of organization. Look at how successful those companies are, how productive there. The workers are happier, more creative, more efficient, take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, suicide, mental illness, Etc. There is no shortage of data to go by.
Prosperity: obviously socialist companies provide more prosperity for workers and communities compared to capitalist Enterprises. At a socialist company the workers get all of the wealth. At a capitalist company workers are paid as little as possible while push to produce as much as possible. The less workers make, the more profit there is for capitalists. So literally, the more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have. That's not conducive to a free-market are thriving economy. Jobs are tied to consumption. But when that money goes to the workers, they spend that money into the economy. They buy more pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. That makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses.
Why do you think it is that most socialist countries are subjected to economic imperialism and sanctions? Yeah, the capitalists do everything they can to destroy Alternatives and then claim that capitalism is the only system that works. I would recommend checking out the National Security archive just to see how many democracies the United States is overthrown just since 1945. If socialism was really so horrible, then the United States could just let those economies collapse on their own without doing everything they can to overthrow them.
1
-
1
-
@MJMilano7 , let me give you another example. Not only is the United States notorious for overthrowing other Democratic countries, they actually have a school that is used to train death squads for the purpose of assassinating workers in South America that attempt to unionize or go socialist. That's not my opinion. That's a matter of public record. Check out the National Security archive.
Or another example. Let's go right back to 1917 when the workers managed to overthrow the repressive Czar in Russia. Who did the United States support? They supported the Tsar. They got together with Canada, Britain, France and Japan, sending troops directly into Russia in order to destroy those core workers that didn't even have access to electricity or indoor plumbing. Only the most primitive Farming tools. The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922! And, just like with Afghanistan, the United States funded a white Army. In Afghanistan and the United States supported and funded the mujahideen and Taliban for the purpose of overthrowing the democratic government. Can the United States use the mujahideen and Taliban as an excuse to actually go to war with Afghanistan. You know how many times the United States has repeated that process just since 1945?
Anyway, yeah, of course workers can own and control their own means of production collectively and democratically. Those types of companies are more efficient, more stable, more conducive to worker health, they make workers and communities less dependant upon the government, they're more conducive to free markets and thriving economies.
1
-
@MJMilano7 , yeah? And what's your point? You think the transition from feudalism to capitalism happened all at once? No. In the beginning you had more feudal modes of production compared to capitalist modes of production. The feudal societies did everything they could to suppress the capitalist mode of production but eventually you ended up where there were more capitals modes of production than feudal of production. Likewise, today we see the expansion of socialist companies. There was a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from work her own companies. That's almost 50% of the way to a socialist economy.
Yeah, of course most of the countries are capitalist. Why do you think the USA has over 800 military bases in over 140 different countries? Again, you don't see competing socialist systems on a large scale because they're overthrown or subjected to severe economic sanctions. Look at the quotes from Henry Kissinger saying that any development of socialism has to be crushed in its infancy before it has a chance to spread. Look at the history regarding Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Chile, Yugoslavia, etc.
Now do you actually have an argument or not? If you don't think socialism Works, explain why. What is it about socialism that you think makes it unviable? Saying that we don't see any fully socialist countries, that's not an argument. At one time the entire world was illiterate. If you were to say back then that we don't see any literacy, that's not an argument that people can't become literate. 😀
the Socialist mode of production is expanding all the time. And we have no shortage of data to show us how it compares to the capitalist mode of production.
Freedom: obviously it provides more freedom for workers and communities because the workers and communities own their own factories and businesses.
When you're an employee at a capitalist company, you don't have any freedom except to quit. The boss can even tell you what you can where and when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
Equality: well obviously when workers have equal voting power they're going to have more equality. You have no voting power when you were at a capitalist company. That's why so many people during the labour movement fought and died to achieve the right to unionize.
Prosperity: obviously when workers get all of the wealth that their labour produces they're going to have more Prosperity. Obviously that's going to be more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because when you increase purchasing power that creates more demand in the economy. It causes the economy to expand.
Capitalism is not conducive to free markets are thriving economies because the goal is to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible while getting the workers to produce as much as possible. That creates a situation where there's more Supply then available purchasing power. The more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have.
Again, that wasn't a better motive production, than the United States wouldn't have to spend so much time overthrowing and sanctioning socialist countries.
You're not making an argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewbalderree338 , well I'm not sure how interesting it is. Capitalism is the private ownership of capital and the means of production. The capital and resources go to the highest bidder. there for you end up with a situation where the richest members of society control the resource. Those who control Capital get most of the wealth produced by labour.
So what Richard Wolff is proposing is that workers combine their resources to obtain their own Capital/means of production. That way they can actually keep the wealth that their labour produces. Otherwise, they have to rent themselves out as wage slaves.
Of course anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to work at a company making money for someone else. Well, not if they had the option of getting paid the full value of their labour.
I mean it doesn't really matter what you call it. you can attach whatever label you like. the key difference is that you get to keep the wealth that your labour produces.
for example, in Spain there's a worker Cooperative that produces 25 billion dollars per year in sales. that money goes to the workers because they are the owners. but when a company such as Amazon or Walmart does 25 billion in sales, most of that money goes to shareholders. that's really bad for the economy because workers have very little purchasing power.
jobs are tied to consumption. every dollar extracted from a worker is one less dollar they have to spend into the economy. that's why we have so much debt.
. Capitalism is a debt based system. in order to maintain consumption levels so that people don't get laid off, reduced purchasing power has to be offset with increased access to credit. that's why they came up with fractional Reserve banking. in order for the economy to expand and consumption to be maintained, you either have to pay workers more or you have to give them greater access to credit. One or the other. so they started printing IOUs.
without fractional Reserve banking you end up with a ceiling limit on how much wealth if you can extract from workers.
if you take 50% of the honey from a beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken. so how do you get around that barrier? if you take too much honey, the bees starve. so, they started replacing the valuable honey with high fructose corn syrup. with workers, they increased the access to credit. whether you're a cow, a honey bee or a worker, the point of capitalism is to extract wealth from someone else's labour.
if you give bovine growth hormone to a cow in order to double milk production, does that result in the cow getting to work half as many hours or getting twice the amount of milk? no. The firmer gets twice the amount of milk. that's why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week under capitalism. All increases in productivity go to the owners of capital which are the richest members of society. that's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction in the working hours when increases in productivity tripled since 1950 thanks to labor-saving technology.
capitalism is basically a human livestock management system. and that's why capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. people had to be driven off of their land and placed into an extreme state of dependency before they would accept doing someone else's work. The conversion to capitalism was extremely violent and bloody.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crcardenal , that's right, United States is the most capitalist country. And what is the consequence? Now China has a larger economy. In the United States most Americans can't even afford a family on a single income. The USA comes in at number 27 in regards to social Mobility. That means you have a better chance of achieving the American dream in countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, even Lithuania has a higher level of social Mobility than the United States. there are Americans that are actually moving to China because they can achieve a higher standard of living there with their education.
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html
• starving Americans form one quarter mile-long line up at Food Bank https://trib.al/jSmp1t0
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/child-homelessness-highest-in-more-than-decade-feds-say/?platform=hootsuite
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/21/low-wage-work-is-more-pervasive-than-you-think-and-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/
>>> https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪︎ Low-Wage Jobs are the New American Normal.
Low-wage workers make up nearly half of the American workforce, and many of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-american-normal
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costs-administration/more-than-a-third-of-us-healthcare-costs-go-to-bureaucracy-idUSKBN1Z5261
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
■ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
■ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪︎ With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds.
~ https://www.mintpressnews.com/harvesting-blood-americas-poor-late-stage-capitalism/263175/
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
▪︎ Companies Spend $340 Million Annually To Stop Workers From Organizing.
Would you prefer that the wealth created by your labour goes into your pocket, or to be used to keep you suppressed and your wages low?
http://labor411.org/411-blog/companies-spend-340-million-annually-to-stop-workers-from-organizing/
▪80% of the population lives on less than $10 a day!
▪50% of the population lives on less than $2.50 a day!
▪The bottom third, more than a billion people, live on a 1.25 a day!
▪ one child dies every 15 seconds from starvation.
▪ 30,000 people die per day from starvation and malnutrition.
▪ 1.2 billion tons of food is thrown away annually in order to maintain prices in the capitalist Market.
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewwilson1975 , I never said that states socialism is more conducive to free markets and thriving economies. I said the type of socialism Richard Wolff advocates is more conducive.
You see, when workers own their own companies in factories then they get all of the wealth that their labour produces. That means they have greater purchasing power. That means they can buy more stuff in the economy. When you increase demand, the economy expands.
However, capitalist companies are about maximizing profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. But that creates a situation where production output increases at a faster rate than income. That creates a situation where workers cannot actually afford all of the goods and services they put into circulation. Literally, the more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have. Eventually consumption will slow, people get laid off and can't consume. You end up with a domino effect. That's one of the reasons there is an economic downturn every 4 to 7 years.
Socialist companies don't have that problem because the workers get paid the full value of their labour.
For example, there's a socially owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. They can make that much money because they own the product of their labour. An assembly line worker at Walmart or Amazon is lucky if they make 20,000 a year.
That's why under capitalism labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours or increase prosperity for workers. Everything produce belongs to someone else. Basically, workers are nothing more than human livestock. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the farmer is up with twice the amount of milk. Likewise, if a worker is given a machine that doubles his production output, he doesn't get to work 4 hours of the day instead of eight. He now produces twice as much for his employer.
So yes, socialist companies are far more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. That's because they do not violate basic economic principles. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when the goal is to keep wages as low as possible for the maximization of profit while producing as much How can you achieve equilibrium when the goal is to keep wages as low as possible for the maximization of profit while producing while getting workers to produce as much as possible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sten260 , capitalism is economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy. Why you think that economic feudalism would be the best system, I have no idea. In my opinion I think economic democracy Would be far better.
The core concept of socialism is workers owning their own means of production. When the government owns the means of production, that's a form of capitalism.
There are 3 main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc. without these regulations capitalism would collapse. this type of socialism is prominent in Canada, the United States, Etc. in Europe they refer to it as a social democracy. In the USA they refer to it as Democratic socialism. The exact same thing, different label.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises.
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
If we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
Traditional socialism / anarchism is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
@sten260 , well, Each to their own. I'm sure there were slaves during the antebellum South that preferred the comfort of being owned. whatever turns your crank. but yeah, there are hundreds of thousands of democratically owned workplaces in the United States and around the world. of course a group of people can start a company just like a single individual can. Obviously.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@Lurch685 , you think just because people have TVs and air conditioners that capitalism is good?
Thanks thanks to capitalism the United States has more people on food stamps than the entire population of Canada! Homelessness is rampant. Thanks to capitalism the vast majority of the people on the planet are poor. Even in the United States most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Why? It's not hard to track where the wealth is going. With every passing day more and more of the GDP go to the owners of capital rather than those that actually work to produce it. Now the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
The United States is basically a third world country for many of its citizens. What good is a TV or air conditioning if you're not getting enough food to eat? Or a statistically speaking you're going to die 20 years earlier because you can't afford healthy food?
United States comes in the number 27 in the social Mobility index. That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ Over 40 million Americans receive Food Stamps because they can't afford enough food to eat. ~ The New York Times.
That's more people than the entire population of Canada!
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
~ CNN
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
~ Forbes
▪ The richest 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the entire middle class! ~ Forbes
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. 2019 study
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour! ~ The Wall Street Journal
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less.
~ brookings_edu/2019
▪︎ Low-Wage Jobs are the New American Normal.
Low-wage workers make up nearly half of the American workforce, and many of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
~ legalreader.
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
~ reuters
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ Wall Street Journal
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.😮
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ejackcity34 , what are you talkin about? :-) leftist policies in the UK? Privatization and deregulation is rampant.
I already told you that Trudeau is not a leftist. And besides, the environment of Canada today was shaped by Stephen Harper, who was in power for an entire decade prior to Trudeau! He would be the equivalent of your George Bush. Are you familiar with the political Spectrum, its history and evolution? For your information leftists don't cut regulations, increase privatization, bail out Banks, Etc. if you want an example of a leftist, consider Eugene Victor Debs, Big Bill Haywood, Thomas Paine, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Janet Rankin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rosa Parks, Susan B Anthony, Etc. LOL would you really compare Justin Trudeau and Obama to any of those people? :-)
you say that I'm the typical leftists? How would you know? But yeah, I am! I believe that wealth should actually stay with the wealth producers. no one should be entitled to the wealth generated by someone else! I believe that communities should own and control their own resources and labour.
But anyway, like I said, if you want to trust the news that's paid for by big corporations, go for it! But don't tell me that it's reliable, objective and impartial. Because it's not! again, it's like the tobacco industry spending billions of dollars on studies that show there's no correlation between smoking and lung cancer. and again, their record speaks for itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, Patrick couldn't even make one single solitary argument or counter-argument. The man didn't even know that markets and capitalism are two different things. Richard Wolff has literally written textbooks on these subjects. He's been teaching these subjects for three-quarters of a century!
We know exactly how well socialist companies compared to capitalist Enterprises. That's because there's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies in the United States and around the world. We have data going back almost a hundred years!
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪ Study number 5: The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cybrdelic , none of that has anything to do with the argument. Again, the only reason people work for Jeff Bezos is because they don't have the option of getting the full value of their labour elsewhere. If all workers had the option of getting the full value of their labour, they wouldn't work for Jeff Bezos in the first place. That's the point.
Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. That creates a situation where most workers will never have access to Capital. That means they have to compete with one another for jobs with those individuals that do own capital. That competition drives the cost of Labor downward. The more there is a something the less it's worth. That's why the average worker is less expensive send your typical chattel slave. Chattel slaves had to be clothed, fed, given medical, housed, Etc. They also had to be educated. They were huge investment. That's why wage workers were used for the more dangerous jobs. Wage slaves are disposable and easily replaced.
If Amazon was worker-owned, each employee would be making about $400,000 a year. Again, the only reason that workers are willing to slave away for Jeff Bezos for a fraction of what their laborers actually worth, that's because capitalism creates an environment where workers have to compete for jobs. People like Jeff Bezos are dependant upon workers being in the state of dependency. The reason capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement is because workers had to be driven off of their land and separated from their resources before they would submit to wage slavery. If too many worker cooperatives came into existence, that state of dependency would be greatly reduced. More and more workers would seek to own their own means of production. That would greatly drive up the cost of labour for people like Jeff Bezos.
Capitalism is based on extracting as much wealth from labour as possible. Workers are push to produce as much as possible while being paid as little as possible. The last Jeff Bezos pays to workers, the more money he gets to keep.
1
-
@cybrdelic , that has nothing to do with the argument or the facts.
The fact of the matter is that when workers own their own companies and factories, then they get 100% of the wealth their labour produces. When workers work at capitalist companies they do not get anywhere close to the full value of their labour.
Again, the average worker at Amazon produces about $400,000 worth of wealth with their labour each year. But they only get paid minimum wage. Conversely, there is a socially on bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year because they own the product of their labour. Their labour produces $70,000 worth of wealth and they get to keep all of that wealth. But at the capitalist company most of that wealth goes to the owner while the workers are doing all of the work.
That's why so many workers prefer socialism compared to capitalism. Socialist companies provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities.
Who do you think is going to create more demand in the economy? Someone with $70,000 worth of purchasing power or someone who makes minimum wage? When the wealth close to the workers, that is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because the workers can buy more stuff! However, when most of the money goes to billionaires, the workers are in a situation where they can't actually afford all of the goods and services they produced. That's bad for the economy. That's why there's so much debt under capitalism. And because workers don't own the product of their labour, labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours. A worker is basically no different than a dairy cow. If you give a dairy cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production the cow doesn't get twice the amount of Milk. The Cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. All of that milk belongs to the farmer just like everything produced at Amazon belongs to Jeff Bezos. That's why workers are called wage slaves. In this environment labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class.
1
-
1
-
@cybrdelic , and what does that have to do with anything that I've said?
Billionaires can afford railroads, electrical companies, apartment buildings, hotels, grocery stores, Etc. They then can make massive amounts of money off of other people's labour. That's how capitalism works.
For example, not too long ago duguay's purchase the Canadian railroad. Billions of dollars that used to go to Canadian infrastructure and workers now goes to Bill Gates. When that money goes to workers, they can buy more stuff. Bill Gates also purchased newly privatized Labs were people get their blood tested. Now people have to pay extra money to Bill Gates to get their blood tested. If you have to pay an extra $5 for a blood test, that's five less dollars you're going to have to buy goods and services produced by your fellow workers. That's one of the reasons why capitalism is not conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. It is the economic system of parasites. With every passing day we have more and more of the GDP going to the owners of capital rather than workers. You can't have an economic system where production output is increasing many times faster than income. Capitalism is a religion. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Capitalism is in direct opposition to that very basic principle. What do you think would happen if you spend $1,000 every time you earned $50? Likewise, if workers produce $1,000 worth of product for every $50 they earn, and there's not going to be enough purchasing power in the market to maintain jobs through consumption.
If we had an economic system where wages were actually commensurate to production output, labor-saving technology would have reduced working hours to about three or four per week by now. But capitalism is based on wage slavery. It doesn't matter that a worker can now produce a thousand times more per hour than what he could in 1929. All the extra wealth produced by increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. Just like all the milk goes to the farmer and not the cow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@siedlape1 , the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about doesn't have anything to do with the government. The socialism that he's referring to is economic democracy. And economic democracy is better than capitalism for a variety of reasons:
▪ study number 1:
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ Study number 2:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 3:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 4:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 5:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 6:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@siedlape1 , who takes the risk? The workers take the risk! And of course like with any company there are a variety of protections, like limited liability. cooperatives come in all shapes and sizes. Coffee shops, print shops, here's a Cooperative in Spain that has over a hundred thousand employees. They own their own Hospital, high-tech Research Laboratories, Bank, University, they even have their own social programs. There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker and Community owned companies and factories. If most of the GDP comes from socialist companies rather than private companies, then your economy is socialist.
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
Forms of social production:
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
@siedlape1 , and here are some studies on the subject. If you're interested.
▪ Study number 1:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 2:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 3:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 4:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 5:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
1
-
@siedlape1 , I just gave you a list of many different companies in the United States and around the world. Yes, I actually have a owned my own company for years.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@siedlape1 , yes, the only way you can own the product of your labour is to either start your own business as an individual or collectively with a group of people. You see, is easy for billionaires to buy things such as railroads, electric companies, grocery stores, apartment buildings, and then just live off of other people's labour. But since capitalism works by keeping most people poor, your average individual has to get together collectively with other individuals in order to start a business. Yes, there's risks. It doesn't matter who owns the business. But yeah, Richard Wolff is basically pointing out that if you don't want to be human livestock, if you don't want to lose most of the years of your life making wealth for other people, then you have to figure out a way to become an owner. Forming a Cooperative increases your chances of success.
Capitalism is about owning for a living. Socialism is about working for a living and getting to keep what you work for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@siedlape1 , also, yes, capitalism is a type of feudalism. It's economic feudalism. You have a very small minority that controls most of the capital and therefore gets most of the wealth produced by labour. Obviously if you have a small group of people getting most of the wealth produced by labour, it's going to cause poverty. The lower they keep your wages, the more profit they make. The billionaire class is a consequence of both labor-saving producing technology and low wages. Low-wage workers are actually cheaper than chattel slaves. Chattel slaves were huge investment. They had to be trained, well-disciplined, housed, clothed, said, their medical had to be provided, Etc. That's why back in the Antebellum South wage workers were used for the more dangerous jobs. Chattel slaves were too valuable to risk. Wage workers are disposable. The only chattel slaves that were used for dangerous jobs were those who couldn't be domesticated and were constantly trying to escape. A well domesticated, loyal chattel slave was extremely valuable.
When you don't own the product of your labour, then you are basically nothing more than human livestock. You are a slave!. A Slave. Just like a cow. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does the cow get to work half as many hours? Does the cow get twice the amount of wealth? No. Every drop of milk produced by the cow belongs to the farmer. That's why labor-saving technology hasn't led to reduced working hours and increased prosperity for everyone. Instead it led to the Advent of the billionaire class because all increases in productivity end up going to the owners of capital, just like the milk goes to the farmer.
You look at that bread factory in the United States. The assembly line workers can make $70,000 a year because they own the product of their labour. If they get labor-saving technology that replaces 500 people, they now have five hundred people to share in the remaining workload. However, at a capitalist company, those 500 people would be laid off where they would have to compete with other unemployed people for the remaining jobs. That drives the value of Labor downward. Whoever has the most education, is willing to work the hardest for the least amount of money, that's the person who's going to get access to the remaining jobs. With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. That's why they're now talking about coming out with a universal basic income. In order to keep the Monopoly board game going, you'll have to have people collecting $200 every time they pass go. If not, the human farming system collapses. And that's what capitalism is. It's a human livestock management system.
Yeah, capitalism is great if you can go from being livestock to actually being a livestock owner! If you can transition to the capitalist class, there's no shortage of over-educated, desperate workers that are willing to work for next to nothing! That's the American dream!
Like I said, capitalism is about owning for a living. You get as many employees as you can, you get them to produce as much as you can, and you pay them as little as possible. That's the capitalist imperative. The maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. Human livestock management.
1
-
@siedlape1 , under socialism labor-saving technology is a good thing because it reduces working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. Under capitalism, leaver saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class. Like I said, because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital, just like milk from a cow goes to the farmer, workers remain depended upon a 40 hour work day in order to survive. Like I already said, with every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. That's why they're coming out with a universal basic income. When workers get laid off they have to compete with one another and that drives the value of Labor down. Most people have to work at least 40 hours a week in order to be able to afford all of their bills. The problem is, we no longer need to work 40 hours a week in order to produce all of the goods and services required by Society.
You see, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. You can't do that under capitalism because workers don't get paid the full value of their labour. Once you reach a ceiling limit regarding production, you have to reduce working hours. We just have to be commensurate with production output. You can't be increasing production output at a faster rate than income. Just like you can't spend $100 every time you earn 20. But under capitalism the main goal is the maximization of profit. That means getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. That's why, technically speaking, capitalism is an anti economic system.
You see, we have a middle class today because of the fight against capitalism. Otherwise, we'd probably making $10 a day like so many other third-world countries. That's what the United States was before the fight against capitalism back in the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie, JPMorgan, Etc. For the working class, back then, the United States was a third world country. And the fact of the matter is, for more and more people every day, the United States is becoming a third world country.
Anyway, because of the fight against capitalism, we managed to go from the 18-hour day, to the 10-hour day, the 9-hour day and the 8-hour day. We've had the 8-hour day for almost a hundred years! If wages and working hours kept up with increases in productivity, we probably be only working 4 hours a day, four days a week by now with twice the living standards of our parents. Since 1950 productivity levels have more than tripled. The Agricultural Revolution increased agricultural output by almost 300% in 15 years while simultaneously reducing the need for Labour by more than half! But again, all of the wealth created by that increasing productivity didn't go toward reducing working hours or higher income from workers, it gets absorbed by the capitalist class. How much longer do you have to work for a week supply of groceries? How many more hours do you have to work in order to buy a home? Or car? Or getting education? And it's going to continue to get worse. Capitalism will go back to its default position. With every passing day the owners of capital are getting a larger percentage of the GDP.
1
-
@siedlape1 , nothing you've said has anything to with what I've said. Yeah, of course people and Society benefits from technology. But that doesn't negate the fact that labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours. That's because workers are slaves. Workers don't own the product of their labour. That's why they call it wage slavery. Just like with the cow when you give it bovine growth hormone to double milk production, all of the milk belongs to Just like with the cow when you give it bovine growth hormone to double milk production, all of the milk belongs to the farmer. Likewise, if labor-saving technology doubles the production output of a worker, the worker doesn't get twice the amount of wealth or get to work half as many hours. But if you're working at a socialist company, then the workers would get that wealth.
Do you understand the point now? Under capitalism we would still have the 18 hour work day if workers didn't fight to have a reduction in working hours. Likewise, since labor-saving technology has more than tripled production output with the same amount of Labor since 1950, technically we should only be working 1/3 as many hours at the same rate of income. If labor-saving technology is introduced which doubles your production output, you still have to work 40 hours a week at the same rate of pay. It labor-saving technology cut labor-hours in half but the market is saturated, then half of the employees will be laid off. That's one of the major problems with capitalism. Socialism doesn't have that problem because workers are free. They own the product of their labour.
1
-
@siedlape1 , who said anything about taking away other people's stuff or taking away from other people's success?
Yes, if you do not own the product of your labour and you are forced work for a wage for survival, then you are a wage slave. Even the Republican party used to be against wage slavery. Wage slavery was considered to be an extremely embarrassing and horrible position in the United States back before the early nineteen hundreds. Like I already pointed out, just like with a cow, it doesn't matter how much wealth your labour produces. It All Belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology doesn't reduced working hours for workers and less workers actually fight for lower hours. If reduction in working hours had have kept pace with productivity levels, we would only be working 16 hours a week. Industry can't even come close to running at 100% capacity. Since before 1950 we had the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. Capitalism has to use planned obsolescence and a disposable economy in order to keep people employed at 40 hours a week. Do you have any idea how insane that is? Most of your labour energy is ending up in the landfill. Something like 99% of the resources we bring into existence with our labour ends up in the landfill after only about 6 months.
under socialism, people own the product of their labour. If you only had to work 8 hours a week in order to have a very comfortable living, if you didn't gain access to labor-saving technology which Cuts your workload in half, now you only have to work 4 hours for the same quality of life. But if you're an employee, then you still have to work the full 8 hours, your employer is the one that ends up with twice the amount of output.
Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. We don't need capitalism in order to have a business. We don't need it in order to have a market. We don't need it in order to have production. Capitalism is the economic system of the capitalist ruling class. They spend billions of dollars on propaganda trying to convince us that we need their system. That somehow it's better for us if they control the wealth producing technology and resources. That be like me telling you that you're better off if you give your house to me and then I will take care of all of the maintenance you just have to give me half of your paycheck every month.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪︎ Here is an example of two employee-owned companies in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
▪︎ Here is Mondragon, a Federation of 120 companies, owned and run by the workers! 100,000 employees, 25 billion annual sales! They own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, factories, they even have their own social programs and safety-net! Those Research Laboratories are so advanced that Intel, Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company actually pays them to conduct research and solve problems on their behalf!
https://youtu.be/8ZoI0C1mPek
Mondragon through a critical lens https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049
▪︎ Maybe you could get together with your family and friends and start your own cooperative? 10 steps https://canada.coop/en/programs/co-op-development/how-start-co-op
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hugokam7762 , socialism doesn't cause bankruptcy, capitalism doesn't. Capitalism is based on exploitation, socialism is not.
There are three main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises.
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
He's not suggesting that people give up their private businesses. In fact, if we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is referring to is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheJoshywoshybumbleb , capitalism is literally a cancer. Most of our labor energy is going into the landfill and most of the remaining 1% ends up going to the richest members of society. There's no reason people should have to work a 40-hour work week in this day and age. That should be obvious. But again, under capitalism but everything produced by labor belongs to 1%. Do you understand the implications? 😀 people are kept working just so that they can keep consuming.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current
disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their
life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded."
John McMurtry
Part 1 https://youtu.be/b4JsCEYpIUA
part 2 https://youtu.be/DvbhzMFWLk0
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually, it's the other way around. they work even better than they sound.
worker-owned companies are statistically more efficient, more stable, more conducive to a free market and thriving economy, the workers are happier, more productive, more creative, they take less sick days, Etc. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. So we know exactly how well they were compared to capitalist Enterprises. But most importantly, workers on the product of their labour. that's why an assembly line worker at a US socially own Factory can make $70,000 a year. You're never see an assembly line worker making that much at a capitals company. That's because they do not own the product of their labour. If they make a million dollars worth of product, they basically made that money for someone else. If most of our GDP came from worker-owned companies, we probably all be working at 10 hour work week by now while having a very high standard of living.
and why would you want to fix the problems with capitalism? Capitalism definitely needs to be regulated for as long as it exists. But wanting to maintain capitalism is tantamount to wanting to maintain slavery. you don't need capitalism in order to have a market, have people producing things, having people selling and trading with one another. those things are not unique to capitalism. capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. it's the economic system of parasites. it's about owning for a living instead of working for a living. socialism is about working for a living and actually getting to keep what you work for. Capitalism is economic feudalism, literally. The type of socialism that Richard is talking about is economic democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, there are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the United States and around the world. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. We know how they work, we know how well they work. We know how well they compared to capitalist Enterprises. Groups of people start cooperatives just like any individual starts a company. there's no shortage of data.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Capitalism is economic feudalism. It has always been that way. The only reason we have a middle-class, the only reason we have an 8-hour workday, five-day workweek, consumer safety standards, worker safety standards, child labour laws, is because of the fight against capitalism. Under the capitalist system most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. Labor-saving technology does not reduce working hours or increase prosperity for everyone because everything that workers produce belongs to the owners of capital! If bovine growth hormone doubles milk production, the cow doesn't benefit. The cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. The cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of wealth. All of the milk belongs to the farmer.
We don't have real capitalism. BS!
1
-
1
-
@skytech2501 , you don't see any problems with capitalism? Are you serious or are you joking? Capitalism is literally economic feudalism. Under the capitalist system most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members of society. And whoever owns the most Capital gets most of the wealth produced by labour. Obviously the person doing the work should get most of the wealth produced by their labour, not someone else. Also, those who own the capital get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low and why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population.
You don't see that as a problem? With every passing day we have more and more of the wealth from the GDP going to a small minority and less of it going to workers. That creates a very serious problem because the workers don't have enough money to actually buy the goods and Services they are producing.
You see, there's a reason why one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Workers produce a billion dollars worth of products but only have 50% of the required purchasing power to consume that product, then there's a problem. Jobs are maintained through consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. And that leads to more people getting laid off. You have a domino effect. The economy contracts and the market crashes.
Capitalism is literally an anti economic system. And you don't see the problem? Again, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. But the goal of a capitalist company is the exact opposite! Their goal is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. The less workers get paid the more profit there is. So the goal of a capitalist company is equilibrium. Not exactly conducive to free markets and thriving economy. That's why we now have fractional Reserve banking. The more wealth you extract from labour the less workers can afford to buy. However, workers are able to produce more more and less and less time thanks to labor-saving Technologies you see the problem?
Why do you think so many people prefer working at socialist companies? Because the workers own the product of their labour. If most of our GDP were coming from sources companies, then most things would be made it home instead of China, most of the wealth would be going to workers, and labor-saving Technology would serve to reduce working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. And since workers get the full value of their labour there's always a balance between purchasing power and the goods and services in circulation.
Socialism make sense. Socialism is an economic system based on science. Capitalism is an anti economic system. It has nothing to do with working for a living. It is about owning for a living. And the more people that get wealth from owning rather than working, the less purchasing power workers have. Capitalism is literally the economic system of parasites. If you have to pay an extra $10 to someone like Bill Gates every time you get a blood test or park your car at the hospital, that's $10 you no longer have to spend in the economy buying goods and services from your fellow workers. Socialism is about working for a living. Capitalism is about owning for a living, and that just drives up cost for workers while simultaneously reducing their purchasing power.
1
-
1
-
@skytech2501 , doesn't sound arrogant at all. It sounds like there is some misunderstanding. Who said anything about taking stuff from someone? Who said anything about giving stuff to people? And who said anything about equality of outcome? I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from. I have never ever heard anyone argue for equality of outcome. I've never heard Richard wolf ever make such a suggestion.
The reason you have so many workers that prefer socialist companies over capitalist companies is because when the workers own their own means of production, then they get to be the boss. They get to keep all of the wealth. Richard Wolff is a spokesperson for socialist workplaces. He's recommending that workers together collectively for the purpose of starting their own companies and building their own factories. That way they don't have to worry about being depended upon some dictator that can force them to work in unsafe working conditions, keep most of the money, dictate when and how long they can go to the washroom, Etc. Who Wants To Be A Slave like that?
Anyway, capitalism doesn't have anything to do with working for a living. It's about owning for a living. That causes very very serious problems. Because like what I said previously, do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour going to people that don't work but just own for a living, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars of reduced purchasing power of workers. You can't be reducing purchasing power by hundreds of thousands of dollars and not expect the economy to contract. That's why they always have so much credit into the system. If you have 70% of the wealth created by workers going to 1% of the population, the workers are only going to have 30% of the required purchasing power necessary to maintain jobs through consumption. You see, capitalism causes disequilibrium. Socialism doesn't have that problem because the workers own the product of their labour and therefore get all of the money that their labour produces.
Capitalism doesn't make any sense. It's a religion. Not an economic system. It's the idea that the richest members of society can own the world's resources and everyone else has to compete with one another for jobs with those owners of capital. And then when the workers want access to the very stuff that they produce, they have to pay even more money to the owning class to get access to the very things they created in the first place. It's got to be one of the most craziest systems ever devised. 😀
1
-
@skytech2501 , we don't need to create a simulation. There's hundreds of thousands of socialist companies all over the world. We have data going back over 100 years.
For example, there's a socialist bread Factory in the United States where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. How much does an assembly line worker make at Walmart or Amazon? About $20,000 a year, even though their labour produces well over a hundred thousand dollars.
So worker is going to have greater purchasing power? Which worker is going to create more demand in the economy? You see, the workers at the bread factory own the product of their labour. If they create $70,000 worth of product, they now have $70,000 worth of purchasing power. You have equilibrium between supply and demand. But the workers at Walmart in Amazon create over $100,000 but only have $20,000 worth of purchasing power. That is a serious economic problem.
Here's an example of a socialist robotics Factory in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
where would you rather work? In a democratic environment where you get 100% of your labour value? Or in a dictatorship where the boss can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom?
You see, under a capitalist economy you end up with most things being made in China and most of the wealth going to the 1%. Under a socialist economy most things are made it home and most of the wealth goes to the workers will spend that money into the economy. Trickle-up instead of trickle-down. That creates more demand. That makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses cuz there's more demand for pizza, beer, houses, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. Socialism makes perfect sense economically. Capitalism destroys markets and causes massive amounts of inequality. Again, that's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91%. So of course the workers are not going to have anywhere near enough purchasing power to maintain jobs through consumption. Like if you had a hundred people and 100 chairs and one person had control over 90 chairs then the remaining ninety nine people are going to have to compete over the 10 remaining chairs. The richest 1% of the population cannot consume as much as ninety-nine percent of the population. It's just not possible. People can only buy so many cars, eat so many hamburgers, buy so many pairs of socks, etc.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. Why would you ever want a system where the riches 1% gets to choose where most things are made in China and gets most of the wealth? It just doesn't make any logical sense at all.
1
-
1
-
@freedomwatch3991 , yeah, those things are not socialism. Those are social policies within the capitalist framework. Socialism is about worker and Community ownership of factories and businesses. A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP comes from privately-owned companies. A socialist economy is one where you have most of the GDP coming from work her own companies. Most of the private businesses are small mom-and-pop type. There's more demand for those in a socialist economy because workers have more money to spend on Pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, excetera.
There are two main types of socialists. You have people such as Richard Wolff, Noam Chomsky, George Orwell that are part of the anarchists branch. They believed in direct worker ownership. Like this: https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
and Community ownership like this https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
Then you have the branch of socialists that believe in indirect worker and Community ownership through the government. State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
But anarchists such as George Orwell don't refer to that as socialism they call that state capitalism because the state is now in charge of the capital and becomes the employers/ boss. You still have the employer-employee dynamic.
Direct worker ownership is a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical form of organization. Capitalism and state socialism top-down hierarchical system organization. Therefore there's always the potential for corruption.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
Here are some examples of direct worker ownership.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@selfsovereign1995 , well the simple fact of the matter is capitalism is a system where the richest members of society own most of the capital. That gives amounts of control advantage over everyone else. But when workers control their own means of production, everything they produce belongs to them and they get to keep all of the wealth their labour produces. Workers don't have to worry about being forced to work in unsafe working conditions. They don't have to worry about being forced to pollute their own environment, Etc. But when someone like Bill Gates owns and controls those things, then he can do what he wants. Why should he care if he pollutes your community?
Not only is Bill Gates the largest owner of Farmland in the United States, even owns a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system. Him and other capitalists are pushing for privatization all over the world. They basically want to own as much as the world as possible. If you have to give Bill Gates an extra hundred dollars in order to get a blood test, that's $100 you no longer get to spend into the economy. That's not conducive to free markets or thriving economies. That's what capitalism is all about. It's not about working, it's about owning Capital so that you can collect wealth without having to work. It is literally the economic system of parasites. One group of people, the largest group, they have to do all of the work and they get the least amount of money and they have to follow all of the orders. The other group of people, the smallest group, they get most of the money, don't have to do any of the work, and get to give the orders. There's been numerous studies that show when people have that much power they generally become corrupt.
Now if you're okay with having a society structured that way, fine by me. Me, I prefer a real economic system where people actually have to work for a living can citizens actually have control over their own labour, resources and means of production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@selfsovereign1995 , who's telling you how to live? Yeah, you own your own business, so? You don't need capitalism in order to have a business.
Again, no one's telling you how to live. Richard Wolff is just pointing out some simple facts. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Those who own the capital get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1% has most of the wealth while Americans can no longer afford to live on a single-income. That's why United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index which is even worse than Portugal in Lithuanian.
Richard wolf is simply pointing out that if you increase the number of worker-owned companies in the country, at the same time increasing the number of things being made at home and the amount of wealth going to workers who spend that money into the economy as opposed to a small Rich minority where the wealth doesn't trickle down.
I don't know where you're getting this idea about people telling you how to live. Dude, if you're happy with the status quo, well, keep it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daviev6186 , what are you talkin about? The beauty of free market capitalism? What does capitalism have to do with markets? Capitalism is not unique to markets. Also you don't need capitalism in order to have a business, have production, to have markets, to have people inventing things, people selling and trading with one another.
Markets and capitalism are two different things. You could change your mode of production from capitalism to socialist overnight and it wouldn't affect the market. Socialism is actually more conducive to free markets and thriving economies because income is commensurate with production output. one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve and maintain equilibrium. Capitalism makes that virtually impossible because the goal is to maximize profit by lowering production cost as much as possible. but that automatically creates a disparity between supply and demand. you can't be minimizing purchasing power on one end while you can't be minimizing purchasing power on one end while maximizing production output.. people need to be able to afford the things they're producing.
you don't want to system that forces people to do stuff? Well who does? that's why people are fighting against capitalism. that's why people want socialism. Socialism maximizes Freedom while capitalism actually restrict Freedom. It's extremely undemocratic.
when you work as an employee, not only can the boss tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom, he pretty much takes all the money that your labour produces. That's not exactly freedom. however, when it comes to socialize workplaces, there is no boss. You're Your Own Boss. You're free. and you get to keep all the money that your labour produces. if the employees at a democratic workplace make a million dollars worth of product, they have made themselves a million dollars. but if you work at a capless bread factory, it doesn't matter how hard you work. It doesn't matter how fast you work. It doesn't matter how many loaves of bread you make. Every loaf of bread you make belongs to someone else. so if you make a million dollars worth of bread, you've basically made someone else a million dollars.
you imagine if someone with red hair said the best system for everyone is one in which people with red hair get 99% of the capital and therefore 99% of all the wealth produced by labour. would you will go along with that? Maybe if you had red hair. 😃 but if you don't have red hair, you'd probably look at the person like they're crazy and tell them to go jump in the lake. likewise, the ruling class spends millions of dollars annually on propaganda trying to convince people that their system is best for everyone. A system in which The richest members of society get most of the capital and therefore most of the wealth produced by labour. Do you have any idea how insane that is? think about that.
whoever controls the bulk of capital also controls the market and the government. and the thing is, under the system you don't even need to work for a living. It's the ideology that instead of working for a living you can own for a living. the more Capital you accumulate, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. so yeah, talk to you about how beautiful capitalism is, that's just weird. what would be dutiful is having a real economic system where people actually get to keep the Money that their labour produces. An economic system where people actually have to work for a living. Not one based on the accumulation of capital for the purpose of extracting wealth from those people that do work. That's called an economic system of parasites.
1
-
@daviev6186 , there are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. Almost 60% of the USA gets its electricity from worker cooperatives. from companies very similar to these two. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
there are 3 main types of ownership:
there is private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), & you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), which is the type of Coop/socialism being discussed in the video.. https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
@daviev6186 , nope, I don't want to impose anything. I would like to see it easier for people to get the capital required to start their own businesses or cooperatives. if there was more variety, more options for workers, then businesses would have to compete for workers instead of the other way around. In China something like 30% of the GDP comes from cooperatives, another big chunk comes from state-owned Enterprises, and capitalist Enterprises. That's probably one of the reasons why they're doing so well. But in the USA, with every passing year, the cost of living increases at a faster rate than income. Workers have to become more and more competitive in order to get the job. Whoever has the most education, is willing to do the most work for the least amount of money, that's the person that gets the job. Only problem is, people no longer have adequate purchasing power to consume all the goods and services available. Rates of consumption are held up with debt. And sooner or later it's all going to come Crashing Down. the two richest people now have more wealth in the poorest half of the American population. money that used to go to workers is now going to at 1%. and things are only going to get worse unless something is done to decrease workers States of dependency on corporations
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrpoliticalguy5602 , what does minimum wage have to do with anything?
The argument is simple and straightforward. When you work at a capitals company then you are a slave. End up losing many years of your life making money for other people. That's money that could be going into your pocket. That's years of your life that you could be saving.
Socialist companies are more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because they provide more equality, freedom and prosperity, both for the workers and for the community.
Freedom: obviously you're going to have more freedom when you're Your Own Boss. When you work at a capitalist company, you are working in a dictatorship. The boss gets to decide when you have to get up in the morning to go to work. They get to dictate how hard you have to work. They get to decide what you wear, how much you get paid, when you get to take your lunch, some employee review the demand that you keep a smile on your face all day. Others tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
Quality: obviously there's going to be more equality when you have equal voting power. There's no one at the top that has dictatorial powers over anyone else. But at a capitalist company you have no voting power at all. You do what you're told.
Prosperity: obviously you're going to have more Prosperity if you get to keep 100% of the wealth that your labour produces. A company such as Walmart or Amazon your average worker produces about $100,000 a year with their labour but they're lucky if they get 20,000 of that wealth. There's a socialist bread factory in the United States through the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year because they get 100% of the wealth that their labour produces. When the wealth flows to the workers instead of someone like Jeff Bezos, the workers spend that into the economy. The economy expands. But capitalist companies want to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible. That causes the economy to contract. The capitalist company violates basic market and economic principles when it comes to equilibrium because the workers end up producing much more than they can actually afford to buy. Free markets and thriving economies require a balance between production output and income. But at a capitalist company the goal is to get the workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. That's one of the reasons why the market inevitably becomes sluggish and unstable every 4 to 7 years.
Also, worker and community-owned companies are tied to the community. You don't have to worry about a boss moving production to China. You don't have to worry about being forced to work in unsafe working conditions. Look what happened in Flint Michigan.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. Most of the wealth produced by labour goes to the owners of capital rather than the workers who actually produce it. Socialism is economic democracy. The workers get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced , etc.
If you're going to be doing 100% of the work, you might as well be getting 100% of the money, not just a portion of it. Capitalist companies are good for capitalist. Socialist companies are better for communities and workers.
1
-
1
-
@mrpoliticalguy5602 , dude, that doesn't have anything to do with the argument.
But since you keep bringing it up, yes, capitalist companies cause poverty and extreme inequality. The more companies you have like Amazon, the more poverty you have. Obviously. People like Jeff Bezos maximize their profits by paying the workers as little as possible. That creates a situation where workers have limited purchasing power. That causes the economy to contract, which results in deduced choices and opportunities. Jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Those people that get laid off then have to compete with one another which drives the value of Labor down even further. That means even less purchasing power. You have a situation where more and more people don't have a choice but to work at low-wage jobs. Do you have any idea what percentage of people are now employed a company such as Walmart and Amazon? It's a downward spiral. Smaller companies at the bottom that can't compete, they end up going out of business. More and more people have to work at companies such as Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, Etc. And that creates a situation where more and more people can only afford to buy stuff from places such as Walmart.
And that has created the situation that we have today. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. If you have 100 chairs and 100 people, if two of those people get 50 of those chairs while the remaining 99 people have to fight over the remaining 50 chairs, what's the consequence? That's why there's so much poverty. That's why there's so much almost. 12% of the American population is food insecure.
Again, socialist companies are more conducive to a free market in the thriving economy because when the workers get to keep all of the wealth of their labour produces, they spend that money into the economy. So, unlike with capitalist companies which expand poverty, socialist companies make it easier for people to start their own businesses. That's because there's more demand for things such as Pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noahwallace3458 , statistically speaking economic democracy and worker-owned companies are more conducive to happiness and creativity. Workers are happier, more creative, more productive, they work more efficiently, there's less incidence of mental illness, suicide, substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, and the list goes on and on.
▪ study number 1:
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ Study number 2:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 3:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 4:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 5:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 6:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The solution is very simple. The argument is very simple and straightforward. You see, under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. The argument is that you should get most of the wealth produced by your labour. So how do you do that? Well, one way to do that is by starting your own business. If you cannot afford to do it by yourself, or if you don't have the skills or education to do it by yourself, then you might think about doing it cooperatively. That's what Richard Wolff is explaining.
For example, there is a socially own bread factory in the United States were assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. That is because they own the product of their own labour. If they make a million dollars worth of bread, they've basically made a million dollars for themselves.
but when you work as an employee at someone else's company, it doesn't matter how hard you work. It doesn't matter how fast you work. It doesn't matter if labor-saving technology is introduced which quadruples your productivity. Every loaf of bread that you make belongs to someone else. So if you make a million dollars worth of bread, most of that money will be going to someone else. That's all Richard Wolff is pointing out.
let's look at some worker testimony regarding socially owned workplaces:
• How about the Ocean Spray cranberry cooperative? Do those workers make minimum wage? 2000 employees produce roughly one and a half billion dollars annually. So how much do you think the workers get paid?
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
• how about these Cooperative owners in Argentina? Do you think they're making more or less money now that they are the actual owners? Do you think the business is actually doing better or worse now that the workers actually own the company and operated democratically? https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
• when you pay your electric bill, when you buy a home, when you buy a condo, Etc, do you want to be buying these things at cost! Or do you want to be putting money into other the pocket of middlemen that aren't actually doing any work or contributing anything? https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
• do you think these workers are making minimum wage? Or are they making a living wage? doesn't sound like they're enjoying being able to actually share in the decision-making process? Does it sound like they are happier having more freedom and control, along with getting paid more? https://youtu.be/8vJDhKMrncw
• these Cooperative is definitely provide more equality, freedom and prosperity compared to capitalist Enterprises. Along with that they have acceptance, the advantage pooling their resources for their families and community, autonomy & Independence (allowed to be unique, it's actually valued instead of discouraged), teaching and education are part of the job -not just simply producing like a Mindless robot!, support, real and genuine concern for your fellow workers and community, sustainable development, etc, etc. https://youtu.be/NO-8iI7GW70
• Evergreen cooperatives! One of the reasons they exist is because it's impossible have a quality life when only making minimum wage. They provide people with a living wage. https://youtu.be/4zU8_ofpPyQ
• even in poor countries during the financial crisis, the workers are still making a living wage, often much more than their American counterparts. https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8
• Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
• almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from these democratic workplaces. https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
• a socially owned robotics company in the United States.
States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪︎ pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
▪︎ Here is Mondragon, a Federation of 120 companies, owned and run by the workers! 100,000 employees, 25 billion annual sales! They own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, factories, they even have their own social programs and safety-net! Those Research Laboratories are so advanced that Intel, Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company actually pays them to conduct research and solve problems on their behalf!
https://youtu.be/8ZoI0C1mPek
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about all the people starved and worked to death in order to produce Goods for the market? Consider slavery in the Antebellum South. For hundreds of years the majority of people lived in horrible conditions under capitalism. 12 year old children had to work 16 hours a day. Most people had to work 7 days a week for virtually no money at all. Read up until the early 19 hundreds workers would burn themselves with cigarettes in order to stay awake on the job! It wasn't until people fought and died against capitalism that we achieve the 8 hour day, five-day Work Week, labour laws that protect children and employees and the environment, the right to unionize, overtime pay, pension plans, Etc. Also consumer safety standards were established. Before that, not only would workers have to toil most of the working hours for little money, they were also dying from basic food and water contamination because there are no regulations in place to force the capitalist business owners to you safe and sanitary methods of production.
No, capitalism is not the best system of social organization. Not even close! it's not the best when it comes to productivity, innovation, creativity, Etc. it is not even the most conducive to free markets and thriving economies. socialism is the best system when it comes to all of those things. and I'm not talking about State socialism, I am talking about worker socialism.
1
-
@DanJourdanSalesCoachandMentor you never heard about people fighting against capitalism? You don't know why we have the 8 hour day, the five-day work week, the right to unionize, child labour laws, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, Etc? I don't even know what to say to that. That's shocking.
They're all kinds of capitalist countries that experienced major economic crashes. Later on I'll compile a list. In regards to socialist countries failing, can you name me one socialist country that wasn't subjected to economic imperialism?
If you want to know why so many socialist countries have failed, I would recommend this political science lecture by dr. Michael parenti. As a start. he explains this within the first 15 minutes. https://youtu.be/GEzOgpMWnVs everything he talks about is a matter of public record. you should be able to find his text books at the public library if you're interested in looking over the citations.
But anyway, I don't know why you're mentioning socialist countries. you do realize that Richard Wolf's position doesn't have anything to do with State socialism, yes? he's not in favour of top-down hierarchical systems of social organization. he's an advocate of socialized workplaces, not State socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@continuouslylearning6152 , that's not true. Under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. therefore they get most of the wealth produced by a labour. They don't have to do anything. There are billionaires out there that have inherited their wealth and have never had a job in their lives. some of these individuals are accumulating several million dollars per hour just from their Capital Holdings. Even if you only have 60 million, that still generates about $4,000 a day. There's no work required. All you do is go to the bank and put in your bank card. Where do you think that money comes from? Why do you think people have to work 40 hours a week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950? Technically speaking, we could have reduced working hours by half. But under capitalism, all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital, not the workers, not the people that solve problems, not those who work the hardest, the vast majority of it goes to the owners of capital. Just like when you play the Monopoly board game.
And this whole thing about wealth not being a zero-sum game, well there is a limit when it comes to how much labour energy can be converted to wealth. I shouldn't need to explain that to you. and when you have 95% of the wealth going to the richest 1% of the population, you're going to have a lot of poverty and a lot of starvation. that's why 80% of the Earth's population subsist on less than $10 a day. you can't have the richest 1% eating up 95% of the pie while the other seven billion people have to compete over the remaining 5%. social mobility in the United States is almost zero. the average American lives from check to check and is in debt up to their ears. most of these people couldn't even get a loan for a new toilet. LOL sure, you have people like Gene Epstein in the debate who is paid by billionaires to tell you that capitalism is not a zero-sum game and that anybody can become rich, anybody can become a movie star, and entrepreneur, a rockstar, Etc. well if you believe that, then you need to improve your basic math skills. and I also have a bridge for sale.
here's the reality of the economic situation in the United States. today it's actually much much worse and it's going to continue to get worse.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10163646961865618&id=544325617
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbenson7587 , socialism is better for markets. If you like markets, then you should be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. Capitalism destroys markets. Socialism expands markets and opportunities.
When workers actually own the product of their labour than they have more incentive to work and innovate.
The problem with capitalism is that it's not based on work. It's beast on owning for a living. Most of the wealth goes to those who own capital. That creates a situation where workers get paid as little as possible. But the less workers get paid the less money they have to buy stuff. That's not good for the market.
For example, there's a socialist break Factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. They're able to make that much because they own the product of their labour. If they make a million dollars worth of bread, they now have a million dollars. But if you look at an assembly line worker at walmart, they're lucky if they make enough where they don't have to have food stamps to survive. Obviously the person making $70,000 a year is going to be better for the market because they can buy more stuff. That creates more opportunity for people because there's more demand for pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, etc. So the market expands. So if you're pro-market, then you should be pro-socialist.
1
-
@danbenson7587 , communism? Communism is a stateless, classless and the moneyless society. The Soviet Union was never commented. They never even claimed any comment. They had a communist government. It doesn't matter whether the government is communist, socialist or capitalist. If you give dictatorial powers to someone, you're asking for trouble. If you remove checks and balances within the government, you're asking for trouble.
Workers slack off at worker-owned companies? That doesn't make any sense. When workers own the product of their labour they're more motivated. It's like if you actually own a car rather than renting a car. Statistically speaking workers are happier, more productive, take fewer sick days, they're more creative, there's less incidence of mental illness, Etc. This is why it's almost impossible to goof off at a worker-owned company:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbenson7587 , you have more billionaires being created because more and more of the GDP is going to the owners of capital rather than the workers. Why do you think it is that most people can no longer afford a family on a single income? Dude, you have to understand that every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who didn't work for it somewhere else who have someone who work for dollar that they don't get. It is not possible for a person to convert their labour energy into a billion dollars. Don't you understand that? What you're supporting is a religion which is impoverishing most of the people on the planet. You now have a situation where the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. You have over 40 million Americans that work full-time but need food stamps! That's how you get billionaires! 40 million people! That's more people than the entire population of Canada!
Why do you support the economic system of parasites? Don't you believe and actually having to work for the wealth that you accumulate? Why do you support such an immoral system that's based on exploitation rather than working?
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. That number 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
@danbenson7587 , the decisions are arrived at democratically. When the seasons only affect you, then only you get to decide. But when decisions affect everyone, then everyone gets to decide. One worker equals one share. One share equals one vote. No one person can own more than one share. Under capitalism the number of shares you can own depends on how much money you have. So if you're someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, you can buy yourself a million votes where the average worker would be lucky if he can afford one or two. That's why capitalism is a plutocracy. Plutocracy means rule by money. That's why the government represents the owning class and not the working class. Under capitalism workers have to fight constantly for protections and privileges under the law. The capitalist class did everything they could to stop people from implementing minimum wage, the 8-hour day, the 40-hour work week, child labour laws, Etc. It's all part of the public record. All you have to do is look up the history of JPMorgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Etc. The only reason we're not working 18 hours a day along with 12-year-old children is because of extreme pressure the working-class put on the capitalist government.
Anyway, at a socialist company you are part of a family. Everyone sits down and decides on how things should be done. So how much you earn depends on how dangerous the job is, how monotonous the job is, how much seniority you have, how fast you work, etc. Ninety-nine percent of the time the disparity between the highest and lowest paid worker usually does not exceed 6 to 1. And the reason for that is because regardless of how much talent you have, regardless of how fast you work, regardless of how much education you have, it's not usually possible for a person to work 6 times faster or harder than someone else. It's usually not possible for a person to convert their labour energy and just six times more wealth than someone else.
Do you see how these workers vote on decisions? https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
@danbenson7587 , dude, you're not making any sense. You're not making an argument. Even if you can change jobs that doesn't change the fact that when you work at a capitalist company you don't have any freedom. You have to do what you're told. It doesn't change the fact that when you work at a capitalist company you do not own the product of your labour. It does not change the fact that when you work at a capitalist company you do not have any voting power. Boss gets to decide when you work, how hard you have to work, when you get to take a break, whether or not you get to have a coffee break, they can even tell you what you can wear and when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
But at socialist companies workers do own the product of their labour. The workers have sovereignty. The workers have equal voting power.
That's the argument. If you look at the history of slavery in the Antebellum South we can see how slaves were able to improve their working condition by making deals with the boss. If the slaves agreed not to encourage other slaves to be disruptive, if they promise not to burn or sabotage anyting, if they agree to work hard and not Escape, sometimes they were offered Freedom after a certain number of years. Or certain guarantees regarding working hours and treatment. But is that a justification for slavery? It's the same thing when you work as an employee at a capitalist company. The boss still has all the power. The boss still owned everything you produce. That's not freedom. We're talking about the difference between freedom and non freedom. That's the argument. So, if you have the option of owning the product of your labour, if you have the option to get all of the wealth of your labour produces, if you have the option of actually having voting power and sovereignty, wouldn't you choose that over a dictatorship where someone else owns everything you produce and control your actions?
You just keep repeating the standard lines made by the capitalist class. Oh, you work harder than you can achieve whatever you want. You can always move up to higher positions. There's always opportunity at the top, Etc. Sure, workers compete with one another with a 98% failure rate while 2% get the rewards, working their way into higher management, and who gets the benefit from all that competition? The person who owns everything that's being produced. The person who gets to make the rules. The person who has all the power.
You're not making an argument. It basically comes down to Freedom versus non freedom. Sovereignty versus non sovereignty.
Now do you actually have an argument or not? I don't know why you keep talking about all of the things that the wage slave can accomplish if he just works hard enough and searches long enough for the right boss. It's pathetic. Maybe you don't care to own the product of your labour. Maybe you don't mind working for someone who has the power to tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. But that's you. I'm trying to explain to you the argument the workers are making. Surely you can understand why so many of them prefer the Socialist mode of production over the capitalist mode of production. Under the Socialist mode of production they are free and own the product of their labour. Under the capitalist mode of production they are wage slaves that don't own anything that their labour produces. That's not much better than being a chattel slave. The only difference is you get to choose your boss.
And no, most people that work at Walmart don't do so because of choice. They do so because they don't have any other options. When it comes to First World countries the United States is number one in the world for low-wage workers. Do you have any idea how many workers commit suicide because they don't have any options? You really think someone would work at Walmart or Amazon and sleep in their car if they actually had an option to work at someplace better? I'm sorry, but your points of view and understanding of the capitalist system is extremely ignorant. I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to look at the statistics.
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. That number 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trustyshellback , no, it's not wrong. It's a mathematical fact. Billionaires make thousands of dollars per second just from their Capital Holdings. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Since 1929 we've had the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. And with every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. But why do working hours not decrease while creasing everyone's prosperity? Because almost 90% of the population doesn't own the product of its labour. Everything produced by that 90% actually belongs to someone else! When you don't own the product of your labour, you're basically nothing more than human livestock.
For example, if you give bovine growth hormone to a dairy cow in order to double milk production, does the cow get twice the amount of milk? No. All of that milk belongs to the farmer. Likewise, if a labor-saving machine doubles the productivity of a worker, that extra wealth goes to the owners. That's why people remain depended upon a 40 Hour Work Week even though it's no longer necessary to work that long reduce all the goods and services produced by Society. That's why we now have fractional Reserve banking. It's the only way to keep the capitalist economy going because when workers don't get the full value of their labour, if they only get half the amount, then they can only afford half of the goods and services in circulation. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. That causes even more people to get laid off. Those people that have to compete with everyone else and that drives the value of Labor down even further while increasing production output even further!
under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. That leaves almost 90% of the population in a position where they have no choice but to sell their labour in order to survive.
Capitalism is a modern form of slavery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@boohacker , well I don't know if we're getting rid of taxes or government entirely. But if workers are making more of the decisions, playing a more active role in society in production, then there becomes less need for government. Also if more of the wealth actually stays with the workers instead of being massively concentrated into the hands of the few, then we would need as much taxation. Under capitalism progressive taxation is necessary because the foundation would quickly be sucked dry well the Apex over bloated, as it is now.
in theory we would quickly transition to a type 1 civilization and communism. Kind of loosely depicted in the type 2 civilization represented in Star Trek. Under socialism labor-saving technology reduces working hours while increasing prosperity. Incentives change. Instead of trying to create a useless jobs because people are dependant upon a 40-hour work week as a result of low wages, the incentive is instead to try to reduce meaningless work and labour. we already have the technological ability to form a natural equilibrium within the biosphere. We've had that ability for quite some time now. Unfortunately it's impossible under capitalism because capitalism requires constant growth and consumption. You can't have consumption on a finite planet. consumption has to be maintained and that's why we have perceived obsolescence, invidious consumption, conspicuous consumption, planned obsolescence, Etc. under socialism we'd be able to eliminate needless waste. With superabundance crime rates would drop. many useless and redundant jobs would disappear. you would need as many prisons, prison guards, police, lawyers, judges, Etc. we probably be able to convert to a 10 hour work week very quickly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is referring to is simply the kind where workers own their own businesses and factories, operating them collectively and democratically. That's type of socialism works very well. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic companies in the United States and around the world. In fact, almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from democratic workplaces what are either owned by the community or the workers.
The main argument is that when workers own the company, they get all of the well that the company produces and they get to be their own bosses. therefore they mostly benefit the workers and communities, making them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. and since they keep most of the wealth in control with the workers and community, they're more conducive to a free market in thriving economy.
Jobs are tied to consumption. If you increase purchasing power, then the economy expands. Capitalism, however, erodes purchasing power. The only way to keep the economy from Contracting is by increasing the availability of credit. That keeps the game going in the short-term, but eventually the interest attached to that credit will reduce purchasing power even further in the future. One of the reasons why there's a major economic downturn every 4 to 7 years.
one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. how can you do that under capitalism when the goal is to produce as much profit as possible? Maximum profit occurs when you get as much work out of your employees as possible while paying them as little as possible. so, hypothetically speaking, if 75% of the wealth ends up going to idle shareholders / owners, then obviously the workers are only going to have 25% of the purchasing power required to buy the goods and services they are producing. where does the purchasing power come from they consumed the other 75% in order to maintain jobs?
it's easier for worker-owned companies to maintain equilibrium within the economy because wages are commensurate with production output. Workers get paid according to their contribution. that's why it's possible for an assembly line worker to make $70,000 a year at a socially own bread factory but not at a capitalist company. if a worker makes $70,000 worth of bread at a capitalist company, most of that money goes to someone else. https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course Richard wolf understands that position. The problem is, it's a false position. Under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. That's why they get most of the wealth produced by labour. The consequences their wealth accumulates at a much faster rate compared to everyone else. That wealth translates into economic power. The richest members of society are going to use that power to form their own government in order to protect their private property. And of course they're going to use the power of government to their advantage.
And even if you did have a limited government which only protected private property, then you would end up with it even worse situation than what we have today. Everything would be privatized and the working class would have no choice but to sell their labour for whatever monetary compensation they could get. The entire world would be owned by a handful of people. Workers would have to pay extra money to those owners of capital every time they wanted to buy toilet paper, chewing gum, education, houses, food, Etc. You would have a tyranny.
We came very close to having pure capitalism back in the late 1800s, early 1900s. People like JPMorgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, they were accumulating massive amounts of wealth while squeezing the citizens for every dime they had. They were accumulating massive amounts of wealth well nine-year-old children had to work because jobs didn't pay enough money to survive. Thousands of workers with die on a daily basis from water and food contamination because there was no consumer safety standards. Thousands of workers would also die from unsafe working conditions because there is no labour laws.
1
-
@ExPwner , yeah, and you go around doing the opposite. 😀
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
You claim to have a master's degree in accounting but don't know how increasing prices also increases profits? "sales minus expenses equals profit". And you don't understand that when prices rise faster than wages we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam."
Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor and the power to make most of the decisions resulting in just about everything being made in china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause inequality. That very statement proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The 2 richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
Look up Oxfam’s new inequality report: "The super-rich are thriving as millions slide into poverty."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom, leisure time and lack of financial concern 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc g o v sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , why are you constantly talking about things you know nothing about? See, the fact that you get most of your information from internet sources such as wikipedia, that wouldn't be so bad if you're reading comprehension wasn't so incredibly poor.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
Wage slavery is a type of slavery. It's true that it is different than chattel slavery. But when you work at a capitals company you're basically working in a dictatorship. If the boss tells you when you work, how long you get to work, how hard you have to work, he can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. Sure, the wage slave is free to choose we rent themselves out to. Back in the days of the Antebellum South wage slaves were disposable. They would be used for Dangerous work because they could easily be replaced. chattel slaves on the other hand, they were very expensive, they were a huge investment.
you don't own the product of your labour, then you are basically a Slave. everything you produce belongs to your employer. That's why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950 because a labor-saving technology. being a wage slave is like being livestock. if you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours or have twice the amount of wealth. The farmer does. likewise, when machines double the productivity of a worker, all of that wealth goes to the owner. That's why an assembly line worker at a capitals company earns very little money, but at socially owned companies you have a simply line workers making as much as $70,000 per year at bread factories. that's because the own the product of their labour. if they make a million dollars worth of product, the workers get that money. when you're an employee, you've basically made that money for someone else.
"In what way do wage slaves differ from chattel slaves?
The slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries.
The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the wage slave, while the wage slave belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave."
1
-
1
-
@masinissaibrahimi5569 , why did you show me that video from fee? Are you familiar with the foundation of economic education? Do you know where they get their funding? they are a propaganda organization that's funded by billionaires connected to the oil and banking industry.
But anyway, as far as that video goes, it has nothing to do with the argument at all. Yes, when you own the company then you get most of the money that the company produces. When workers own the company, they get most of the money that the company produces. When you own the company, you get to be the boss. When the workers on the company then they get to be the boss. That is the argument.
Also, that video is being a bit disingenuous. They're talking about mom-and-pop type businesses. the problem is when you're dealing with huge corporations that are making trillions of dollars off of low wage workers. That becomes a serious problem because jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption flow, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a downward spiral. You end up with a domino effect. that's why there's so much debt. The more workers you have making low wages, the less demand you have for goods and services. if capitalists are getting 75% of the wealth from the products produced by workers, then obviously the workers are only going to have it up purchasing power to afford 25% of that which they produce. it's like having to bake 4 loaves of bread just so that you can afford one loaf. so where does the purchasing power come from to buy the other three loaves? that's why they came up with the idea of giving everyone a credit card.
You see, giving people a credit card and pumping credit into the system is tantamount to beekeepers replacing honey with high fructose corn syrup. you see, you can only extract so much honey from the honey bees before they die of starvation. the capitalists were able to fix that problem by using high fructose corn syrup as an alternative. when it comes to workers, you can only extract so much profit from their labour. the more profit you extract, the less the workers can afford to buy. they solved that problem by giving everyone a credit card. and now we owe trillions of dollars for no other reason than the money that should have been going to workers ends up having to be bored at interest. sure, that keeps the Monopoly game going for a while, but in the end the interest attached will erode purchasing power even further.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CP-pt1ot , like I already pointed out, of course there are differences between chattel slavery and wage slavery. and no, wage slavery is not just a word. it has a very specific meaning with very specific implications and consequences. words have meaning. the term wage slaves enables us to differentiate between someone who does not own the product of their labour and someone who does.
If you don't own your own labour and you have to rent yourself out in order to survive, then you are a wage slave. wage slaves do not get paid the full value of their labour. That's the point. They do not own the product of their labour. again, when you're a wage slave the boss tells you when you work, when you don't work, how hard you have to work, they can tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom, Etc. You do all of the work and someone else gets the most all the money.
The boss can replace you with his best friend, he can reduce your pay while increasing the amount of work you have to do. It is a literal dictatorship. The only difference is you can choose to take orders from someone else if you are in a position where you can actually switch jobs. Do you have any idea how many people are not in a position where they can financially change jobs?
Initially even the Republican Party considered that type of Labor to be a form of slavery.
here's some Labour history for you.
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
From <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith>
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
page 410 http://www.ultimorecurso.org.ar/drupi/files/Adam%20Smith%20%27The%20Wealth%20of%20Nations%27.pdf
1
-
1
-
@CP-pt1ot , I already did make the point succinctly. Worker-owned companies are better for communities and workers. They provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities. capitalist companies provide those things mostly for capitalists.
and no, what I'm talking about is not a fantasy. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. We know exactly how well they were compared to capitalist companies. There is no Theory involved. We're talking about hard empirical data. We're talkin facts. Not fantasies, not Theory, not speculation. Do you understand?
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@CP-pt1ot , yes, that's true. The cow could continue to work the same number of hours while producing the double twice the amount of milk. the problem is, we've have the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming since the 1930s. Industry can't even come close to running at 100% capacity. So when you see a TV Factory that implements labor-saving technology, doubling production output with half the amount of Labor, half the workers end up getting laid off because the market can't not handle that many TVs. speaking of milk, do you have any idea how much milk Farmers have to throw away each year do the overproduction? Even though one child dies every 15 seconds from starvation, we throw away 1.2 billion tons of food annually in order to artificially maintained prices within the capitalist Market. You see, the more there is of something unless it's worth. But since most of the money is actually going to the owners of capital rather than the actual workers, workers need to work 40 hours a week in order to survive. that's why we have so much planned obsolescence. If we didn't have a throw-away disposable economy, the whole system would crash. most of a person's labour energy ends up going into the landfill.
here's a stat going all the way back to 1997!
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials."
Global Change Programme (Royal Society of Canada) Vol. 7: No. 3 (1996), 3; and Ernst Weizzsacker, Factor Four. London: Earthscan Books, 1997.
~ https://scienceforpeace.ca/action-and-understanding
~ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03058298980270020228
~ http://www.jaunimieciai.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism.pdf
capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised.
workers have to be able to afford the goods and services they are producing. hypothetically speaking, if workers only make $25 for every $100 worth of stuff that they produced, where does the other $75 come from? one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when production output is increasing at a much faster rate than income? you can't! That's why there's so much debt. that's why people should only be entitled to the wealth today actually work for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MylesKillis , are you joking? you must be pulling my leg. 😀 when is Destiny not wrong? The last time I heard Destiny speak he was claiming that markets and capitalism are the same thing. And that anytime someone sells the product of their labor in the market, it's capitalism! Yeah, we're dealing with someone that doesn't even know that markets and capitalism are two different things. So I don't know what he's doing in this discussion. I'd be surprised if he knew where Israel is on the map.
Bonnell: "Every single deal is just rejected out of hand because the Arabs don’t want a Jewish state anywhere in this region of the world."
That is patiently false! And the accusation that the first and last resort of Arabs is always War, that's patently false as well.
Mouin Rabbani:
"Mr. Bonnell, you made the point that the problem here is that people don’t recognize is that the first and last resort for the Arabs is always war. I think there’s a problem with that. I think you might do well to recall the 1936 general strike conducted by Palestinians at the beginning of the revolt, which at the time was the longest recorded general strike in history.
You may want to consult the book published last year by Lori Allen, “A History of False Hope”, which discusses in great detail the consistent engagement by Palestinians, their leaders, their elites, their diplomats, and so on with all these international committees.
If we look at today, the Palestinians are once again going to the International Court of Justice. They’re consistently trying to persuade the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to do his job. They have launched widespread boycott campaigns. So of course the Palestinians have engaged in military resistance. But I think the suggestion that this has always been their first and last resort and that they have somehow spurned civic action, spurned diplomacy, I think really has no basis in reality."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
well it's points are very simple. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. If workers can obtain their own Capital, then they can keep all of the money produced by their labour and they can own the product of their labour. And they can also be their own bosses. And that is more conducive to a free market and thriving economy because when workers have more money, they can spend more. jobs are tight to consumption. When people buy more stuff, the economy expands. But capitalism erodes purchasing power because corporations do everything they can to maximize profits, and that means hiring experts to figure out all the best ways to reduce production costs. As wages approaches zero, profits are maximized. but that violates one of the central goals of real economics. which is to achieve equilibrium. One way that capitalism gets around that contradiction is by increasing access to Credit in order to offset any reductions in purchasing power.
You see, under capitalism workers are nothing more than human livestock. if a cow is given bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, that milk goes to the farmer.
but anyway, Richard wolf is simply pointing out that if workers can obtain their own Capital, then they can keep all of the money that their labour produces and they can be their own boss. it's bad enough that the boss gets most of the money produced by labour, it's beyond insulting that on top of it he can actually tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. 😃
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And what do you think he was dishonest about? What would his motivation be for being dishonest? If you got together with your family and friends, or anyone, and started a worker Cooperative, how would Richard wolf benefit from that? If more of our GDP came from worker cooperatives, how would that be a bad thing? And how would Richard Wolff benefit? If more of our GDP came from worker-owned businesses and factories, then most things wouldn't be made in China. Instead, they would be made at home. Instead of having most of the wealth produced by labour going to a small minority of people, that money would go to the actual workers and producers who wouldn't spend that money into the economy. That would create demand and opportunity. The economy would expand.
But instead, we have an economic system where the richest members of society control most of the businesses and factories. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. And that's why we have a situation where the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population! The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The eighth richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population! Before the pandemic 40 million Americans were using food stamps in order to survive. That's more people than the entire population of Canada!
I don't know, Richard Wolff makes perfect sense to me. And I don't see how he has anything personally to gain from an expanding Cooperative sector in the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under socialism you don't need fractional Reserve banking. Workers don't need to borrow money. Why? Because the wealth actually stays with the wealth producers! Who are the wealth producers? Workers. Labour includes both mental and physical efforts. The wealth producers are the scientists, Machinist, engineers, architects, Etc. If you do 50% of the work, you're entitled to 50% of the return. Equilibrium is maintained in the marketplace. However, under the capitalist system, those who do the most work end up with the least amount of money. And those who do the least amount of work end up with the most amount of money thanks to their Capital holding. Just like when you play Monopoly.
For example, it wasn't long ago that Bill Gates bought the Canadian railroad. in one year he increase his wealth from 80 to 90 billion dollars. that's 10 billion dollars that used to go to Canadian workers. those Canadian workers used to spend that money into the economy. that's a lot of beer and pizza. one person's expenditure is another person's paycheck.
Another example. Let's say you work at a TV Factory. you might help produce 1000 TVs a day. but at the end of the day the average worker won't earn enough to purchase even one of those TVs. so if workers are actually producing more then they can afford to consume, where does the money come from in order to maintain jobs!?
and what happens if a machine replaces 500 employees? instead of having 500 employees to sharing the remaining workload, reducing working hours, they end up getting laid off, where they have to compete with all the other unemployed people for the remaining jobs. that competition devalues labour even more reducing purchasing power even further! TV productivity continues to increase while worker pay and labour decrease. without fractional Reserve banking the entire system would collapse overnight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JumpJolpes_23 , and if you actually believed in free markets, then you would be anti-capitalist. Capitalism destroys markets. How can you have a free market when most of the wealth producing resources, wealth producing technology and modes of production are privately owned by a small Rich minority?
▪ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. At 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
Millions of workers in “the world’s wealthiest country” are forced to sell their blood in order to survive. The Washington Post featured a 41-year-old teacher with a $50,000 salary who sells plasma twice per week to get by. “I never thought I would be in a position where I would have to sell my plasma to feed my children,” said Christina Seal of Slidell, Louisiana. “I’ve applied for every government program that I can think of. I don’t qualify for food stamps, I don’t qualify for any programs.” The Post explained that plasma donations “have quadrupled since 2006.”
▪ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's wrong with the system is that it allows the richest members of society to own most of the capital on the planet. Those who own most of the capital get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, etcetera. That's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1 percent now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Now most Americans can't even afford a family on a single income. The social Mobility index for the USA is about 27. That's even worse than Portugal and lithuania.
However, when workers own their own companies, then they get to make the decisions and they get all of the wealth that their labor produces. That's more conducive to a free market and thriving economy because when the money goes to the workers instead of a small Rich minority it gets spent into the economy. That makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses. People like your mother. And because worker owned companies are tied to the community, most things will be made at home rather than China.
A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP is coming from privately owned companies that utilize wage labor for profit.
A socialist economy is one where most of the GDP comes from worker-owned companies that do not utilize wage labor for profit. The workers are doing their own work.
So, if we had more companies like this https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
then we could also have a lot more smaller Mom and Pop companies, like the one your mother started.
Socialist companies actually make workers and communities less dependent upon the government and capitals companies when it comes to jobs and consumer goods.
The problem of capitalist companies is that their goal is to maximize profit. Profit is maximized by paying workers as little as possible while getting them to produce as much as possible. If 75% of the wealth is going to the owners of capital, the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of what they produce. The problem is if you want the economy to expand then you have to be increasing purchasing power. But the more successful company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have. So capitalism is technically an anti economic system. Their goals are in direct opposition and contradiction to basic economic principles. If consumption slows down, people get laid off. When people get laid off, they can't consume. Reduce purchasing power has to be offset with increased access to credit otherwise the economy would contract and collapse
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
that's not true. There are many pre capitalist societies that had a high standard of living. also, as far as the quality of life we have today, we owe that thanks to the Scientific Revolution which occurred 500 years ago and the fight against capitalism. Capitalism didn't bring us heat our day, the five-day work week, consumer safety standards, the right to unionize, child labour laws, Etc. if it wasn't for all the people that fought and died resisting capitalism, we'd still be making poverty wages just like the third world countries. Back in the days of JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Etc, 1 in 11 workers used to die from exhaustion. 9 year old children had to work 16 hours a day so that families had enough to eat. even back then we have the technological means to produce far more than could be consumed by a society. but, thanks to capitalism, the means of production and Technology were owned and controlled by the richest members of society. Everyone else had to compete with one another for employment with those individuals. that competition drove wages down to Rock Bottom levels. Thanks to labor-saving technology, a Year's worth of product could be produced in less than 6 months. with every passing day more and more could be produced with less and less labour. Those increases in productivity served the owners of capital while workers became more and more desperate.
capitalism is economic feudalism.
1
-
1
-
@scottmartin1845 , who said anything about guaranteed outcomes? I don't know what that has to do with socialism. worker-owned businesses can go bankrupt just like capitalist companies that their products don't sell. There are no guarantees. I'm assuming that you're referring to the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is advocating. Or maybe you didn't watch the video.
it's almost impossible for billionaire to lose his wealth.
For example, there is a person who won the lottery last year where i live. he won 60 million dollars. That money is currently sitting in a bank account. He is getting 3% interest on that 60 million.
That comes to 1.8 million dollars a year.
That's $150,000 per month.
That's $35,000 per week.
that's $5,000 a day.
That's $200 an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year, for the rest of their life, until the day they die. and they will pass that privilege onto every child they have and every woman that they marry.
now let's look at Jeff Bezos. He has about 200 billion dollars now. So, hypothetically speaking, if he were to dump all of his Capital assets and just put that money into the bank account at 3% interest, he would be accumulating 6 billion dollars per year for doing absolutely nothing.
That's 500 million dollars a month.
That's a 115 million dollars per week.
That's 16 and 1/2 million dollars per day.
that's 685,000 per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
How long does it take you to use the washroom? Let's say it takes you 1 minute to take a dump. by the time Jeff Bezos takes a dump, he has an extra $12,000 in his bank account. 😃
where do you think that money comes from? Every dollar of that has to come from labour. Every time you take out a student loan, every time you buy toilet paper, a toothbrush, finance a house, a car, Etc. you have to pay some rich individual for that privilege. He gets to collect that amount of money without doing any work at all. And, unless he's actually capable of spending $600,000 an hour, with every passing hour, he'll be making more money than he did before.
1
-
@scottmartin1845 , I have no idea what you're getting your ideas from.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41:30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
1
-
@scottmartin1845 , dude, are you having a hard time with reading comprehension? There are places in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. Do you know why? There's a reason why the United States is number 27 in the world when it comes to social Mobility. There's a higher Social mobility in Lithuania and South Korea. LOL the two richest people in the US have more wealth in the poorest half of the American population. Well over 60% of Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. It's not that the worker Cooperative model doesn't work well, it's just that for most Americans, the United States of the third world country for them. Also, they have no knowledge of worker cooperatives or how to start one. 😃
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html
• starving Americans form one quarter mile-long line up at Food Bank https://trib.al/jSmp1t0
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/child-homelessness-highest-in-more-than-decade-feds-say/?platform=hootsuite
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/21/low-wage-work-is-more-pervasive-than-you-think-and-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/
>>> https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪︎ Low-Wage Jobs are the New American Normal.
Low-wage workers make up nearly half of the American workforce, and many of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-american-normal
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costs-administration/more-than-a-third-of-us-healthcare-costs-go-to-bureaucracy-idUSKBN1Z5261
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
■ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
■ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪︎ With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds.
~ https://www.mintpressnews.com/harvesting-blood-americas-poor-late-stage-capitalism/263175/
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
▪︎ Companies Spend $340 Million Annually To Stop Workers From Organizing.
Would you prefer that the wealth created by your labour goes into your pocket, or to be used to keep you suppressed and your wages low?
http://labor411.org/411-blog/companies-spend-340-million-annually-to-stop-workers-from-organizing/
1
-
1
-
@andreeaalexandru7811 , of course it works. There are hundreds of thousands of democratically owned workplaces in the United States and around the world. Almost 60% of the USA gets its electricity from worker-owned cooperatives. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from cooperatives. There's a Cooperative in Spain where a hundred and twenty thousand workers own their own University, Hospital, high-tech Research Laboratories, Bank, Etc. The research and development department is so Advanced they get contracts with Microsoft, Intel and the Ford Motor Company. Then there's other massive companies such as the electronics company in China which is owned by the workers. We know exactly how well they compare to capitalist Enterprises. there's no shortage of data to go by
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
of course it's the fault of capitalism. under capitalism Banks, factories, construction for homes, utilities, everything is owned privately for profit. It all goes to the highest bidder. That's why just about everything on Earth is owned by the richest members of society. That allows them to get most of the wealth produced by labour and make most of the decisions. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China. it is economic feudalism. The government and monetary system is owned and controlled by the richest members of society, just like with all the other capital. That's how capitalism works.
Also, capitalism requires debt and fractional Reserve banking in order to remain viable. You see, under capitalism profit is the main objective. Workers are pushed to produce as much as possible while getting paid as little as possible. you have a situation where 75% of the wealth is going to the owners of capital. But that violates basic market and economic principle. That creates a situation where the workers can only afford 25% of the goods and services they are producing. The thing is, jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. unemployed people then have to compete with one another for the remaining jobs. That competition drives the value of Labor down even further, creating an even larger gap between purchasing power and available Goods / services. in order to keep consumption from slowing, credit has to be pumped into the system. But ultimately the interest attached will erode purchasing power even further. It's a temporary fix that's why they keep raising the debt ceiling.
under capitalism the wealth that is created by labor-saving technology end up going to the owners of capital. That's why we still have a 40 Hour Work Week. We no longer have to work 40 hours a week in order to provide all the goods and services needed by Society. But since capitalist and keeps wages down, most people have no choice but to work 40 hours a week or longer in order to survive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are you talkin about? There's hundreds of thousands of socialist companies in the United States and around the world. Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from worker-owned electrical cooperatives. There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies. It should be obvious that worker-owned companies are better for workers and communities compared to capitalist Enterprises.
Workers get to keep the full value of their labour, they have equal voting power, and they have more freedom because they're Their Own Boss. They're more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because when wealth flows to the workers instead of billionaires, more money gets spent into the economy. There's more demand for pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. But when most of the money is going to billionaires, they spend that money on going to space, buying politicians, by lobbyists, buying lawyers and accountants so they can hide money offshore. They also buy up more Capital like railroads, electric companies, Farmland Etc. Bill Gates now owns a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system and he's largest owner of Farmland in the United States. Be even bought up newly privatized labs in Canada where people get their blood tested. If you have to pay an extra $10 to Bill Gates every time you park your car get a blood test, that's $10 you no longer have to spend into the economy buying goods from your fellow workers. That causes the economy to contract.
Also, because workers cannot get the full value of their labour when they work at capitalist companies, the workers can never afford all of the goods and services they're producing. Production output is literally greater than purchasing power. That violates one of the basic principles of economics which is to achieve equilibrium.
The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible. So literally the more successful a capitals company is, the less purchasing power workers have. That's not conducive to free markets and thriving economies. That's antithetical. That's one of the reasons why capitalism becomes unstable every 4 to 7 years. Jobs are tied to consumption. It's only a matter of time before consumption slows where people get laid off and can't consume. To end up with with a domino effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NuvoVision , dude, you're not making any sense. No one is saying that the owner of a company shouldn't get all of the wealth or get to make all the decisions. Your company belongs to you. Just like your home. Obviously you wouldn't allow strangers to decide how you arrange your furniture in your house. So what are you talkin about? You sound like a raving lunatic.
Richard Wolff is pointing out that if workers want to be able to keep all of the wealth and make all the decisions then they have to own the company. Simple. It's like if I were to point out to you that you're better off owning a car rather than renting a one. Would you automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm telling you that you should go and steal someone else's car? No. Of course not. Don't talk like such a nutcase.
There are hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies in the United States and around the world. And guess what? None of them were stolen! Amazing, I know.. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies.
All Richard wolfer saying is that those types of companies are better for workers. He's also saying that it's easier for a group of people to get together and start a company rather than a solitary individual. That's because most people don't have huge amounts of money or a wide skillset which is needed to run a diverse company. If you're not rich person who can afford numerous professionals, and it's easier to get together with a group of people that different skill sets. That way people can learn from one another. Adam Smith Point to do that capitalism will make people stupid. That's because people are atomized doing specific jobs. But when workers own the company, they become more intelligent because they're taking an active role in all of the functions of the company.
Here's an example of two socially owned companies in United States. A bread factory and a robotics company. The assembly line workers at the bread factory make between 65 and $70,000 a year! That's because they own the product of their labour. Richard wolf is simply pointing out that when you do not own the product of your labour then it doesn't matter if you produce $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product It All Belongs to someone else while the boss pays you as little as possible. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
so I don't know where you're getting your ideas from. All you've got to do is look at the statistics. Workers at Democratic companies are happier, more creative, they take less sick days, they work harder, there's less incidence of substance abuse, depression, suicide, Etc. Also worker-owned companies are more efficient. And of course that makes sense because of the workers actually own the company then obviously they're going to be more motivated. Who in their right mind would want to throw away years of their life making millions of dollars for someone else? Doing all of their work, taking all of their orders while they end up with all the money?. Richard Wolff is just talking about simple common sense. I have no idea what you're talking about.
1
-
@NuvoVision , no, it would naturally take over. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Capitalism was made possible by the enclosure movement. People had to be forced into extreme states of dependency. Billionaires can buy Hospital, parking lots, electric companies, grocery stores, apartment buildings, Etc. They can buy oil companies, massive amounts of land that contain gold mines, oil wells, natural resources, Etc. Most people are not in the position to be able to start their own business. Just like how most people in the United States today can afford a family on a single income. There are billionaires that are accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars per second just from their Capital Holdings. For example, Bill Gates recently bought the Canadian railroad. He also bought Labs where people get their blood tested. Millions of dollars that used to go to workers is now going into his pockets. That's millions of dollars of purchasing power that workers no longer have to buy goods and services from other fellow workers. That's why there's so much debt. People could get your scared to death about automation replacing their jobs. If we had a real economic system, people would celebrate automation. Under the capitalist system workers are nothing more than another form of livestock. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. The cow doesn't get twice the amount of milk. That's because the farmer owns the milk that the cow produces. Likewise, workers don't own the product of their labour. It doesn't matter if a worker produces $70,000 worth of wealth or 70 million dollars worth of wealth. It all goes to the owner. However, there's a socially on bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year.. why are they not making minimum wage like the assembly line workers at capitalist companies? That's because they do own the product of their labour. If everyone on the product of their labour, labor-saving technology probably would have caught working hours in halfback in 1950. The only reason we don't have a 18 hour work day today is because so The only reason we don't have a 18 hour work day today is because of the fight against capitalism. Same reason we don't have 9 year old children working 16 hours a day, six and a half days a week.
Again, capitalism was made possible by the enclosure movement. The only reason people work at Walmart where Amazon is because they're in a state of dependency. If you remove the state of dependency, then places like Amazon and Walmart would go bankrupt.
1
-
@NuvoVision , and what do you mean two examples? There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. There's no shortage of hard empirical data that show us exactly how they compared to capitalist companies. Again, the problem is that most people don't have access to Capital the way that billionaires do. That's the problem. All you've got to do is read labour history. Most of the former slave owners didn't care about switching over to capitalism because they knew as long as they had the capital, the workers would have no choice but to rent themselves out or starve. That's where the term wage slave came from. Even the Republican Party called at wage slavery back then.
Capitalism is the economic system of the ruling class. That's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually producing propaganda saying that it's natural and normal. It's not. It's like saying that blue-eyed people should get to own most of the world and get most of the money without doing any work. While the brown-eyed people have to do all the work, take all the orders, and get the least amount of money. Yeah. That's the basic religion that they have been selling people. You should get most of the wealth produced by your labour. Not someone else. Think about it.
"When a man is placed in a position where he is compelled to give the benefit of his labor to another, he is in a condition of slavery, whether the slave is held in chattel bondage or in wages bondage, he is equally a slave." — Quentin Skinner
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/the-anti-social-socialist-what-is-wage-slavery/.
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence." ~ Eugene Victor Debs
“What you don't necessarily realize when you start selling your time by the hour is that what you're really selling is your life.”
― Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
"The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
Capitalist propaganda since 1945:
• Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
• Part 2: http://youtu.be/QY8i4JXdpxs
• Part 3: http://youtu.be/fUOqrxrrY0k
• Part 4: http://youtu.be/ZQuPMRnInoY
• Part 5: http://youtu.be/ao0P7_P22BM
• Part 6: http://youtu.be/3433t89k4LY
"The history and development of social engineering in the 20th century" http://metanoia-films.org/human-resources/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Johan Liebert , dude, the capitalist class at the top of the pyramid has made record profits during the pandemic. The oil industry, the banking industry, people like Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, Etc, yeah, some capitals get thrown under the bus. The big fish eat little fish. The function of the capitalist government is to protect the capitalist system, the capital Holdings of the capitalists, and the capitalists from one another.
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. That number 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Johan Liebert , and what does that have to do with anything?
Capitalism is economic feudalism. It allows the richest members of society to own most of the capital. Those who own most of the Capital get most of the wealth produced by labour and get to make most of the decisions when it comes to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91%.
That capitalist class is the ruling class. It's their government, their economic system, their Market, Etc.
Why do you think they implemented fractional Reserve banking? Because there's a ceiling limit in regards to how much wealth you can extract from labour. The goal of capitalism is to maximize profits. Profits are maximized by keeping production costs as low as possible. What's the largest cost of production? Labor! The lower wages are, the more profit there is. As production costs approaches zero, profit approaches its maximum. But the more money you take from workers the less they have to spend. The more successful a capitalist company is the less purchasing power workers have. Any erosion of purchasing power has to be offset with increased access to credit. Fractional Reserve banking allows allows us to borrow from the future. The future wealth produced by labour. Capitalism is basically a pyramid scheme.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@armyretguy7365 , well there are three main types of socialism. The original was about workers directly owning their own Factory or workplace.
The second kind of socialism is indirect ownership through the government. SOEs or state-owned Enterprises.
Then you have the third type of socialism which is regulatory: progressive taxation, consumer safety standards, labour laws, minimum wage, social programs, antitrust laws, Etc.
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firm.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@armyretguy7365 , but in regards to worker cooperatives, there is a huge amount of data available. There's a worker Cooperative in Spain that has a hundred and twenty thousand workers that own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, Hospital, they even have their own social programs.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Robert Reich only mentions five of the seven elements of fascism.
The seven core elements / principles of fascism:
1. Irrationalism
The basic assumption is that man is not a rational being. He need not be reasoned with and cannot be reasoned with; he can only be lid and manipulated. Irrationalism is also part of other ideologies, but it is most important in relationship to Fascism and national socialism. This is part of the appeal of fascism, for we must admit that it has appealed to many. For someone who is insecure, financially, socially or emotionally, an appeal based on race hatred, intense nationalism, and the like, which gives him a feeling of worth as a member of a superior race or a nation and identifies people who he can believe to be inferior to him, can be very effective. Fascism gives a sense of belonging, a sense of superiority, and a sense of security to those who feel cut off, inferior, or insecure. And it does this in such a way that the feeling need not be questioned.
2. Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is the name generally given to social theories that view Life as a struggle for survival within each species as well as between the species. In Charles Darwin's Book On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection 1859, there is found the statement that life evolved through a struggle for survival between the species. The social Darwinists took this idea and applied it to each species. In other words, rather than seeing a struggle for survival between the species, they saw a struggle for survival within the species. Fascists and National socialists applied this idea to their theories of nationalism and race.
3. Nationalism
This is the most important element. For the fascist this means extreme patriotism, supreme love of country. aka "integral nationalism". There's no such thing as an individual within the fascist ideology. An individual is one small part of the nation.
"Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."
~ Benito Mussolini
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
4. The state
5. The principle of leadership
6. Racism
7. The corporate economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaredstevens5382 , well it's one thing to become a millionaire. It's quite another to be able to earn a million dollars in one year. Of course there could be millions of millionaires. There might be a new millionaire created every week. Maybe one a day. A million today is not really a lot of money. But to have a million people learning that much on an annual basis? Maybe.
Richard is correct when he points out that it takes a lot of low wages to be able to support the annual accumulation of a million dollars. You see, even with labor-saving technology a person is only capable of converting so much of their labour energy into wealth. Even if you could legitimately earn $200,000 a year and save every penny of it, would take you no less than five thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars. For someone to accumulate million per year, well that's a lot of money. And I choose expense? See, all wealth has to come from mixing labour with capital. If you have someone accumulating wealth that they didn't work for, then it has to come at someone else's expense. Every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who didn't actually work for it, somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. So there's a ceiling limit for how much wealth you could extract from labour. You see, unlike livestock, workers actually need to be able to afford the goods and services they produce. The only reason people can have million-dollar annual incomes today is because of fractional Reserve Banking and access to credit. The more wealth you extract from labour at the less workers can afford. As soon as consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. You have a domino effect. Hypothetically, if 75% of the wealth produced by labour goes to Millionaires and billionaires, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of the actual goods and services they create. So how do you maintain jobs through consumption? Anyway, I guess Richard Wolff doesn't believe labour would actually be able to support a million people extracting $1000000 annually from the economic pie. I mean these are pretty bad as it is. Look at how low interest rates are. Now they're talking about the possibility of introducing negative interest rates and implementing Universal basic income. There's a reason why one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you do that when you have an economic system where production output increases at a faster rate than income? It's a pyramid scheme. Printing money into existence is basically borrowing from the future.
1
-
@jaredstevens5382 , stop copying and pasting what? Citations and references? No, I'm not going to type those things out by hand. That's why I use a computer and not a conventional typewriter. What a weird thing to say. The argument couldn't be any simpler or straightforward. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China. That's what we call a plutocracy. It's economic feudalism. People want to achieve socialism because they want to be free. If you don't own the product of your labour then you're nothing more than human livestock. You really think it's necessary for people to work 40 hours a week for most of their lives just so they can afford clothing, transportation and food and a little wooden box to live in? No. Of course not. When you don't own the product of your labour it doesn't matter if you produce $70,000 worth of product or 70 billion. That all belongs to someone else. Just like the milk from a dairy cow. So yeah, obviously workers want to own their own tools and resources. So they don't have to be weighed slaves doing other people's work to make other people money. Why would I want to throw away years of my life making money for you when I could the independent and keep all of the wealth that my labour produces? Sorry, but the argument is solid. You don't think my citations support the argument? Well I'm sorry but they do! Statistically speaking workers that on the product of their labour or happier, more productive, more creative, they take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of depression, suicide, Etc. There are thousands of studies! I couldn't even list them all. And you want me to type the Mofi hand? Are you out of your mind? Anyway, you actually have any counter-argument? You're so far you're not making any sense.
1
-
1
-
@jaredstevens5382 , nothing I said was copied and pasted. Do you see why you don't State assumptions as fact? The fact that you would do such a thing, what does that say about you? You see, you completely destroy your credibility. You made a faulty assumption regarding me, you didn't even take the time to test your assumption. Whatever gave you the idea that I was using copy and paste? Anyway, Richard wolf doesn't have any motivation to lie or be dishonest. Do you think he makes money if workers get together and start their own cooperative? You see, the interviewer has a conflict of interest. He has a vested interest in maintaining the capital system. Do you know why it's so hard to convict someone in the court of law without the establishment of motive? Richard Wolff does his lectures and interviews at cost! And even if there was a way for him to profit from worker cooperatives, why would he want to? You think people like him and Noam Chomsky have extravagant lifestyles? The man already has more money than he needs. For people like him and Noam Chomsky, their greatest expense is probably books! Anyway, capitalism is an immoral system. It's based on exploitation and owning for a living. That's extremely disgusting! There are billionaires out there making hundreds of thousands of dollars per second! Where do you think that money comes from? You do realize that a person's only capable of converting so much of their labour energy into wealth, yes? If you extract more from the system than you contribute, then it has to come at someone else's expense. No one earns a billion dollars. It is not possible for anyone to convert their labour energy into that much wealth. Even if you could save $200,000 a year, it would take you no less than five thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars. Capitalism is a religion. We need an economic system that's based on science. Thinking that the richest people can own the resources on the earth while everyone else has to pay for Access fees and rent and sell their labour for a fraction of its worth to these owners of capital. That's insane. Why don't you read something that has a bit more credibility, like the Bible! 😃 and by the way, you'll know when I use copy and paste because I use quotation marks. LOL and next time, don't make assumptions about me. Ask first. Then you can either choose to believe me or not. I don't think you can actually know what I'm thinking or what I'm doing. Next you're going to be telling me what my favourite colour is what I just ate for lunch.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ceelothatmane9421 , that's simply not true. There are thousands of people that were born rich and simply use their money to buy up capital for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. My brother never worked a day in his life. He owns multiple apartment complexes. everything he owns was paid for by his tenants. his tenants have to give up almost 70% of their income to him house rent. The tenants have paid for the apartment complex many times over. Not only have they paid for the actual building they live in, they also paid for everything that's in the building, they pay for the building's maintenance, they pay for the building's managers, and, on top of all that, they've also paid for my brother's home, his car, his lifestyle and even his kids.
I recommend watching a documentary that could be found on YouTube called born rich. Those children have never worked a day in their lives. They take their money and they buy things such as railroads, electric companies, apartment complexes, Labs where people get their blood tested, grocery stores, Etc. They didn't hire poor desperate people to do all of the work. So every time you buy toilet paper or get your blood tested, most of your money is actually going to someone who never worked instead of an actual worker who's producing those goods and services in the first place.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. It is the economic system of parasites. people should have to work for a living. capitalism is the idea that you shouldn't have to work for a living. that's why they joke that if you can't find a way to earn money while you're sleeping, then you're going to actually have to get a job and work for a living. yeah, that's the type of jokes they make. and then they paid professional spokespeople and politicians, like Margaret Thatcher, for example, to say that there's no alternative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukemiller1385 , what does Venezuela have to do with worker-owned companies? Venezuela has the least number of worker-owned companies. It would be better to move to those regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies. Don't you think?
yes, the number of billionaires and millionaires are increasing. But what does that have to do with the argument? Socially owned Enterprises mostly benefit workers and communities. Capitalist Enterprises mostly benefit capitalists. If you are underemployed, unemployed, overworked, stressed out from a controlling boss, then worker cooperatives are a good option.. they are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy compared to capitalist Enterprises. They provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities. Just like capitalist companies provide those things for capitalists.
also, just because the number of billionaires is increasing, That doesn't change the statistical fact that the vast majority of people will never accumulate a million dollars regardless of how hard they work or how much education they have. When it comes to social Mobility the United States only comes in at number 27. so, if you want the highest chances of being able to increase your Social Mobility, then there are 26 other countries that are better than the United States. yes, it's true that your chances of becoming a billionaire are better in the United States if you already have a lot of money, if you are a movie star, a rock star, a sports star, Etc. but for your average person, if you're just a regular worker with a standard education, and there's 26 other countries that you'll be better off moving to in regards to having a higher standard of living and being able to increase your Social Mobility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BKHockeyTalk , of course there are a lot of people that make 6 figure incomes at capitalist companies. But that doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of people don't make enough money to even support a family on a single income. The point is assembly line workers can never make $70,000 at a capitals company.
the point is, why throw away years and years of your life making money for someone else when you can actually keep all of the money that your labour produces?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
@BKHockeyTalk , what does socialism in worker cooperatives have to do with equal outcome? yes, some people have upward Mobility at companies. Most do not. But that is completely beside the point. The point is, do you want to keep all the money that your labour produces or do you want lose years of your life making money for someone else. And yes, living off of the labour of other people is parasitical. Maybe you have a different word for it.
and like I said, most people choose capitalism out of ignorance. do you know how much is spent on propaganda annually? If it wasn't for propaganda, capitalism probably would have disappeared 50 years ago. Capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised. There are some billionaires out there accumulating several million dollars per hour just from their Capital Holdings. Where do you think that money comes from? That serves to reduce purchasing power. why do you think we still have a 40-hour work week? it's because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. just like with a dairy cow, if you give that cow bovine growth hormone to double milk production, the milk goes to the farmer. Likewise, if you're an employee at a capital company, it doesn't matter if you make a million dollars worth of bread. Each loaf of bread you make belongs to someone else.
Anyway, again, capitalism is maintained largely in part due to propaganda. initially, people resisted the conversion to capitalism with every fibre of their being. it took many years of social conditioning to get people to accept capitalism without question.
Capitalist propaganda since 1945:
• Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
• Part 2: http://youtu.be/QY8i4JXdpxs
• Part 3: http://youtu.be/fUOqrxrrY0k
• Part 4: http://youtu.be/ZQuPMRnInoY
• Part 5: http://youtu.be/ao0P7_P22BM
• Part 6: http://youtu.be/3433t89k4LY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rube1954rap , there are many barriers. For one thing, most people are in debt up to their ears. They live from check to check. Second, most people are not aware of worker cooperatives. third, it's hard to compete against capitalist corporations that can utilize state-of-the-art technology, multimillion-dollar advertising and propaganda, governmental regulations, Etc. Under the capitalist system most of the capitals owned and controlled by billionaires. they can mobilize both production and labour globally.
No, worker cooperatives are not capitalist. The core concept of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. Merely selling the product of your labour is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. Businesses, markets, production, people selling and trading with one another, those things are not unique to capitalism. Worker cooperatives are not capitalist because the workers own the company collectively and they're doing their own work. They're not paying other people to do the work for them while capitalizing on their labour. That's what capitalism is all about. that's why capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. People had to be forced off of their land before they would accept wage slavery. that's why the conversion to capitalism was extremely violent and Bloody. back then wage slavery was considered to be almost as bad as chattel slavery.
but despite all the barriers, cooperative sector is expanding. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. there are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. In the United States almost 60% of the country gets its electricity from socially and communally owned electrical cooperatives.
1
-
@rube1954rap , There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
@rube1954rap , since there are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world, we know exactly how well they compared to capitalist companies. There's no shortage of hard empirical data which is been collected over the last 75 years.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@rube1954rap , capitalism exists because people are in the state of dependency. if you remove the state of dependency, then capitalism will cease to exist. for example, there's a socially on bread factory were assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. That's because they own the product of their labour. assembly line workers can't make that much money at a capitalist company. that's because they do not own the product of their labour. If everyone had the option of getting the full value of their labour, would they work for a fraction of their worth at a company such as Walmart or Amazon? No. Of course not.
Capitals and violates basic market and economic principle. For example, what are the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when workers don't get paid the full value of their labour? Is 75% of the wealth goes to the Rich minority, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of the goods and services they produce. Jobs are tied to consumption. Of consumption slows people get laid off and can't consume. The unemployed people end up competing with one another which drives the value of Labor down even further. why do you think there's so much debt? under capitalism nothing gets done unless someone can make a profit. But the problem is we can produce far more than we're capable of consuming. So it gets harder and harder to make a profit. Capitalism is a religion. however, when workers own the product of their labour, then labor-saving technology serves to reduce working hours. Right under capitalism all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. Just like a cow when it produces milk. capitalism reduces people to human livestock. if a farmer gives a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does the cow get to work half as many hours? no, you have a farmer with twice the amount of milk. That's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction of working hours. Anyway, it's not rocket science. all you have to do is think. Work out the math.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebourg , freedom is having economic democracy. Freedom is owning the product of your labour. that's why socialism and communism Is so popular. Community owned and work worker-owned companies and factories benefit communities and workers. Capitalist companies benefit capitalist at the expense of workers and communities.
For example, in the United States there is a socially own bread factory where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year. That's because they own the product of their labour. But if you're an employee and you make $70,000 worth of product, most of that money will go to someone else.
Capitalism is dependant upon poor desperate workers that don't have any choice other than to rent themselves out in order to survive. That's why capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. People had to be driven into extreme states a dependency with Force. That's why the conversion to capitalism was extremely violent and bloody. When workers can own their own factories and companies, then they could be independent. You no longer have to be depended upon billionaire corporations or government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. And that is more conducive to a free market and thrive in the economy. Capitalism destroys markets and economies. if most of the wealth goes to shareholders rather than the actual workers, then the workers are not going to have enough purchasing power to buy the goods and services they are producing. That's why there's so much debt under capitalism.
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence."
~ Eugene Victor Debs
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
"The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
1
-
1
-
@beyondtheblue1259 , yeah, of course they achieve State capitalism great that was the goal. They plan on achieving full socialism by 2051 and communism after that.
Achieving State capitalism was a necessary first step. We live in a capitalist world and China is surrounded by capitalist countries. Sure, they could have just tried to transition straight from extremely primitive Society to socialism, but they would still be stuck 100 years back in the past, like Venezuela and cuba. They needed to be able to trade with other countries gain access to their markets. It was the only way to build their highly Advanced technological society.
And their strategy has been highly successful. I don't know how you can say they're not ambitious. Accomplished things no Society has ever achieved!
they lifted billions of people out of poverty in record time. Something that has never been accomplished by any civilization. At the same time they put men into space and are building space stations. Look what they accomplished just in 20 years! Look at photographs in 20 years ago and compare them today, it's like comparing the Amish to a type 1 civilization.
"China’s unprecedented accomplishments in combating poverty have earned global praise.
The United Nations calls it the greatest poverty reduction feat in history, and the remarkable undertaking makes a strong case for socialism.
A well-known Chinese political slogan says that practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. And the truth is, the entire history of the People’s Republic of China constitutes the world’s largest-ever poverty reduction project. Over the course of 70 years, over 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty.
For the Chinese people, the victory of the Poverty Alleviation Campaign means accomplishment of the goal in the 13th Five Year Plan for a “moderately prosperous society” by 2020.
As planned, socialist construction in China will enter a new stage, with the Party’s “Two Centenaries” goals outlining a set of quantitative nation-building objectives for the next several decades.
In 2021, China’s 1.4 billion people will celebrate the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China by dumping poverty into the dustbin of history. It is another huge step on the path to becoming a strong, democratic and modern socialist country."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Michael-qy1jz , well you can call it whatever you like. Richard wolf is simply pointing out that employees can never get the full value of their labour unless they own their own business or factory. That's the point that he's trying to make.
For example, there is a socially owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 per year. That's because they own the product of their labour. Not much more than minimum wage even though their labour produces more value than the workers at the bread factory. The difference is that most of that money goes to the owner rather than the worker. It doesn't matter whether they produce $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product. It All Belongs to someone else. That's why we still have a 40 Hour Work Week even though productivity levels have more than tripled thanks the labor-saving technology. An employee is basically like a dairy cow. If you give a dairy cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. The cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of milk. It belongs to the farmer. So Richard Wolff is pointing out that if you want to keep all of the milk that you produce, then you have to be coming owner. And Richard Wolff has pointed out many times that you can either start a business as an individual, or you can do it collectively, or you can join an existing cooperative. That's his point.
So I don't know why you're getting all bent out of shape because he refers to it as stealing. You have issue with semantics, not the argument. If I get you to produce $1,000 worth of value for me and then I give you $100, you might not refer to it as stealing. You can refer to it whatever you want. You can call it magic rainbows and Fruit Loops for all I care. The point is if you want the full thousand dollars and you have to own the product of your labour. Simple. I have never ever heard Richard wolf ever suggest that someone should take over someones Factory or expect to be able to control someone else's business. That's just ludicrous. Actually, I heard him joke about that the other day. If you try to take over someones business, they call these people in little blue suits that have guns. They come and they do nasty things to you. Thinking that he is suggesting that you take over someone else's business, that just doesn't make any sense at all. In order to do that you would have to basically have to overthrow the entire government and Military. Good luck with that. It's hard enough to convince people just to vote for a union let alone overthrown entire country and its military. 😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well the analogy is very fitting. When you work for an employer you have to do what you're told. Your employer tells you when you work, when you don't work, how hard you have to work, he can cut your wages, replace you with his best friend, even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. The employer gets to dictate and the worker has to follow orders. The owner is basically the king of his business. The workers are subject to have to do what they're told or they get fired. Most people are dependant upon their jobs.
From the beginning of capitalism read up to the early nineteen-hundreds, renting yourself out was considered to be a form of slavery. That's why they called it wage slavery. In the United States even the Republican party was against wage slavery. Renting yourself out was deeply offensive and embarrassing. you see, when you actually don't own the product of your labour, you're basically nothing more than human livestock. Just another form of capital. it doesn't matter if your labour produces $70,000 worth of product or 70 million dollars worth of product. most of that money will go to the owners of capital. that's why we still have a 40-hour work week even though we couldn't Easley produce all the goods and services needed in society with a 10 hour work week. Just like when you double milk production by giving a cow growth hormone, the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. The mail call goes to the farmer. Just like with an employee.
some labour history;
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
"The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence."
when you work as an employee, the boss tells you when you work, how hard you have to work, Etc. they can cut your wages, your working hours, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
From <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith>
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
page 410 http://www.ultimorecurso.org.ar/drupi/files/Adam%20Smith%20%27The%20Wealth%20of%20Nations%27.pdf
1
-
@dimitrivancamp1013 , easier to play the victim? I have no idea what you're talking about. The argument is very simple and straightforward. Worker-owned companies are better for workers and communities. Capitalist companies are better for capitalists. Worker-owned companies provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities. Obviously.
yeah, if you could start your own business as an individual, then that would probably be preferable. But that doesn't have anything to do with the argument or the facts.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Noam Chomsky warned us for years what would happen if we kept Crossing Russian red lines. It's a wonder that Russia didn't respond back when the United States overthrew the Ukraine government in 2014.
"In the biggest power grab since George Bush seized Eastern Europe and converted it into a NATO bastion confronting Russia, the Obama regime, together with the EU, financed and organized a violent putsch in the Ukraine which established a puppet regime in Kiev."
~ James Petras, 2014 (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
▪ Noam Chomsky, 2021:
"In 2014, a Russia-supported government in Ukraine was forcefully removed from power by a coup supported by the U.S. and replaced by a U.S. and European-backed government. It was a development that brought closer to war the two main antagonists of the Cold War era, as Moscow regards both U.S. and European involvement in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued eastward expansion as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to encircle Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fldllse , why are you talking about Karl Marx? Richard wolf is simply talking about economic democracy. He's talking about increasing the number of worker-owned companies and factories so that communities and workers have more control over their labour and community. Those types of workplaces are better for workers, the environment, communities, they make people must depend upon the government and billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. And more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. When the wealth goes to the workers instead of a handful of billionaires, they spend that money into the economy. That causes the economy to expand. Statistically speaking worker-owned companies are actually more productive. But it's a moot point anyway because industry can't even come close to running at 100% capacity because for a long time now we have the capacity to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. In fact, we could be able to produce far more than we can consume.
There is no justification for capitalism in this day and age. You don't eat capitalism in order to have a business, to have a market, to have production, to have your mom and pop shop, have people selling and trading with one another. Capitalism is outdated. It's an immoral system based on exploitation and it's unsustainable. It's extremely primitive inefficient system of organization. In fact, it's one of the most wasteful and destructive system ever devised. Literally 99% of our labour energy ends up in the landfill. 99%! Would you be complaining about being over work 40 hours a week or not having enough to eat if 99% of your groceries when into the garbage every time you went shopping? Of course not. Can you imagine if you could get just 50% of that waste-to-energy back? We should have a high abundance Society with people working no more than 40 hours a week. Probably a lot less than that. But under this system, because capitalism drives wages down so low, workers are dependant upon a 40-hour work week even though we don't need to work that long in order to all the goods and services required by Society. That's why we now have a disposable economy. That's why we have planned and perceived obsolescence. It's to keep people working. The more productive we become the faster they figure out ways to get stuff into the landfill. Within less than three months workers can produce a year's supply of production output, but that's a serious problem because workers need a 40-hour work week in order to be able to survive because their wages are so low and the cost of things are so high. With what little money workers do get, it ends up going right back to the owners of capital in the form of rent and usage fees. It doesn't matter if you buy shoelaces, toilet paper, bubble gum, get a blood test, you have to pay extra money to an owner rather than just to those people that produce those things. It should be obvious that a person should need to work 40 hours a week their entire lives just to be able to afford a little wooden box to live in, food and clothing.
Anyway, like I said, capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive system ever devised. It is literally cancer on the Earth.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
John McMurtry
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timothyhufker3565 , that's what socialism is. An economic democracy. Capitalism is economic feudalism. You haven't study basic political ideologies?
economic democracy n.
Economic democracy means that the participants in economic institutions (e.g. factories, stores and universities) decide on the policy of the institution.
Socialism:
1. "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• "Socialism is an economic and political system. It is an economic theory of social organization. It states that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the workers. This means the money made belongs to the workers who make the products, instead of groups of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists." ~
Durlauf, Steven N.; E. Blume, Lawrence. "socialism". DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS. Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
What are the 2 key features that make an economy capitalist?
1. production for profit:
most production of goods and services is undertaken by privately owned companies, which produce and sell their output in hopes of making a profit. This is called production for profit.
2. wage labor:
Most work in the economy is performed by people who do not own their company or their output, but are hired by someone else to work in return for a money wage or salary.
The working class makes up about 85% of Society. The top capitalist owners and managers make up roughly 2% of society. They own most of the major capital on the planet.
An economy in which private, profit-seeking companies undertake most production, and in which wage earning employees do most of the work, is a capitalist economy. These twins features - profit-driven production and wage labor - create particular patterns and relationships, which in turn shaped the overall functioning of capitalism as a system.
Capitalism is a system in which the bulk of society's work is done by propertyless labourers who are obliged to sell their labour-power in exchange for a wage in order to gain access to the means of life.
Wage laborers have to sell their labor power to a capitalist simply in order to gain access to the means of their own life and even the means of their own labor!
In the process of supplying the needs and wants of society, workers are at the same time and inseparably creating profits for those who buy their labour-power. The production of goods & services is subordinate to the production of capital and capitalist profit. The basic objective of the capitalist system is the production and self-expansion of capital.
So, when most of our GDP is coming from private companies, most of the wealth is going to the owners of capital. They get to decide how things are produced, where things are produced, what things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China and that's why the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
But if most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies, because they're tied to the community, you have most things being made at home and most of the wealth going to the workers who spend that money into the economy. That makes it easier for people to start their own small businesses. The economy expands. It creates demand.
capitalism is an extremely anti- economic system. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. The goal of a capitalist company is in direct opposition to achieving equilibrium. The goal is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting the workers to produce as much as possible. But obviously you can't have an economic system where production output is increasing at a much faster rate than income. That's why there's so much debt. The more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have!
Why do you think it is that labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950? Because 90% of the population doesn't own the product of its labour. It's like if a cow is giving bovine growth hormone to double milk production, the cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of milk or wealth. The cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. That's because all the milk belongs to the farmer. That's why I leave her saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. Since we can produce far more than we're capable of consuming, workers get laid off when labor-saving technology is introduced, those people that are laid off have to compete with the other unemployed people and that drives the value of Labor down even further. Workers remain depended upon a 40-hour work week in order to survive. When actuality we should only be working about 10 hours a week... that's why our economy is based on planned obsolescence, expansion and extreme waste. That's why we constantly have to be penetrating into other markets all over the world.
Here are two socialist companies in the United States. You see how they're democratically run? So if we had most of our GDP coming from such go to production, then we would an economic democracy. We would have a socialist economy. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
@timothyhufker3565 , dude, what are you talkin about? Why are you associating capitalism with free-market? Are you out of your mind? 😃 capitalism is antithetical to free markets. If you believe in free markets, you believe in people being rewarded for hard work, then you would be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. Again, capitalism is not about working for a living. It is about owning for a living. You have billionaires out there that are accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars per second just from their Capital Holdings. You think that's conducive to a free-market? You think destroying purchasing power of workers is conducive to a free-market? Every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who doesn't work, somewhere else who have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get.
Socialism is an economic system is based on science. People are only entitled to the wealth that they work for. Capitalism is about capitalizing on other people's labour. It's a pyramid scheme. It's no wonder that you can understand what Richard Wolff saying. You have all these preconceived ideas. Like associating capitalism with free markets. Wow! I don't even know what to say to that. You cannot have a free-market under the capitalist economic system. That's not possible. 😃 under the capitalist system the market is not free for 90% of the population. It gives the richest 2% the freedom to dominate and control the market. LOL. And then those people intern tell you that that's what freedom is. You actually believe these individuals? You take them at their word? http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0 and then, when people like you actually believe what they're saying, they say that's evidence that democracy is dangerous because the average individual is not capable of governing their own lives let alone economic policy. That's why the founding fathers said that country should be governed by those who own it. Yeah, people like Donald Trump. LOL.
You really want to have to pay extortion fees to Someone Like Donald Trump every time you use toilet paper? Use electricity? For ninety percent of the population the only way they can get money for the means of survival is by manufacturing products on behalf of individual such as Trump, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, etc.
Sure, it makes absolute perfect sense that you would actually support economic feudalism over economic democracy. It's completely reasonable that you would choose an economic system where 90% of the population doesn't actually own the product of its labour, basically reducing those individuals to human livestock.
Actually, maybe the ruling class is right. Maybe the working class is just not capable of governing their own lives. 😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@semblanceofdisorder , your comment doesn't make any sense. Just because Democrats are further to the left then far-right Republicans, that doesn't make the leftists.
Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the argument? Capitalism is an immoral system, it's based on exploitation, it's not sustainable, it's extremely undemocratic, it's bad for the workers, bad for the environment, bad for communities, Etc.
worker-owned companies are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. They're good for communities and workers. They decentralize power making People more independent. They provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities. Etc. That's the argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you mean by socialist markets? Socialism is more conducive to a free market. How can you have a free market when 1% of the population owns most of the resources? when the rich people control the railroads, the water supply, the medical supply, Etc. They can charge what they want. everyone else has to pay in rent and usage fees. That's why we're working 40 hours a week. You can't have a free market like that. Adam Smith explain this in his book The Wealth of Nations. You have to have a democratic environment in order for a free-market to work. Socialism is democratic, capitalism is not because it's a top-down hierarchical system where the 1% get to decide what is produced, where things are produced, how things are produced, Etc. That's why we seen the water supply in Flint Michigan Poison by the workers who had no choice. That's why they had their jobs shipped to China! But now you can sit at a hundred thousand workers in Spain that own their own bag, means of production, Research Laboratories, they do contracts for the Ford Motor Company and Microsoft, Etc. One worker equals one vote. They've been in operation for 75 years. You don't see them poisoning their water supply or moving production to China. Why? Because the workers are in control. They are not subjected to a top-down dictatorship. These things are very simple. I don't know why some individuals have such a hard time understanding Richard Wolf's argument.
and by the way, Richard Wolff is a Democratic Socialist. He's not a state socialist. one is a bottom-up system which is democratic. The other is a top-down non-democratic hierarchical system. There's a big difference between the two.
1
-
1
-
@schwarzerritter5724 , there are many forms of social organization. What do you mean when you say real socialism? If you want to talk about the original meaning of socialism dating back to its Inception, well then that would be workers owning and controlling their own labour. It had nothing to do with state ownership.
Some labour history:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
From <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith>
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations page 410 http://www.ultimorecurso.org.ar/drupi/files/Adam%20Smith%20%27The%20Wealth%20of%20Nations%27.pdf
1
-
1
-
@schwarzerritter5724 , There are literally thousands of examples of bottom-up systems of social organization.
Consider the Paris commune, or consider the 135 thousand workers in Spain that own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. One worker equals one vote. It's a bottom-up system.
The workers get paid the full value of their labour and they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. They don't have to worry about some CEO or board of directors forcing them to pollute their environment, like what happened in Flint Michigan with the water supply.
They don't have to worry about a dictatorial owner moving production to China! They don't have to worry about Boards of directors cutting their wages in order to increase profits. And because they get paid the full value of their labour, they have a lot more money to spend in to their Community, which means smaller businesses thrive.
in that environment if 50 workers are replaced by automation, you end up with 50 extra workers to share in the remaining workload. but under a capitalist system those 50 workers would end up on the unemployment line where they would have to compete with one another for jobs that are continuously decreasing in number. That competition actually drives down the value of Labor. and that is not conducive to a free market. workers need enough money to actually be able to purchase the very goods and services that they're creating in the first place. That's why capitalism is technically an anti economic system. it's not conducive to free markets. socialism is conducive to free markets and prosperity because wealth actually stays with the wealth producers. that was the argument that Richard Wolff was making.
You see, as things are now, both workers and consumers are depended upon corporations for both jobs and consumer goods. Most of the population on Earth is dependant upon these few people that own these corporations. That's why we're in a situation where we end up doing most of the work but they get most of the money. We need to free ourselves from this state of dependency.
If we start producing our own goods and services and our own jobs, then we can keep wealth where it belongs, with us!
When wealth actually stays with the wealth producers and the community, then workers make more money! And when workers make more money, they can spend more into their communities. So that way you end up with more people with jobs making pizza, cutting hair, bowling alleys, entertainment centres, Etc.
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
1
-
@schwarzerritter5724 , it depends on what form of social organization you're referring to. Some people Advocate State socialism. Some people advocate socialize workplaces. Socialize workplaces or like capitalist Enterprises, but instead of being hierarchical , it's the opposite. Instead of being top down, it's bottom up.
With capitalist Enterprises one share equals one. So it's basically ruled by money. Whoever can afford the most shares has the most control. Someone such as Bill Gates will always be able to purchase more shares than someone with less money. they get to decide what is produced, how things are Blues, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. So of course they vote to keep most of the money for themselves while paying workers as little as possible. That's why they fund right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations to try to remove minimum wage laws.
But with socially owned worker Enterprises one worker equals one vote. So it's democratic. the workers get to keep all of the wealth produced. And that's why you never see them poisoning their water supply, moving production to China, giving most of their money to CEOs or shareholders, that's why bread makers can actually make $65,000 a year
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are many sources of funding. Where do you think people get the revenue to start a business? Obviously it's going to be easier for groups of people to start their own company than for a solitary individual. There's hundreds of thousands of worker owned companies all over the world. Where do you think wealth comes from in the first place? The workers invent the machines, build the machines, maintain the machines, operate the machines, etc. Under capitalism the richest members of society lay claim to the gold mines, the oil, the land, and therefore end up owning everything the workers produce. If workers got to keep the full value of their labor from day one, all of those machines, all of that capital, they'd be able to pay for it many times over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@llffoomm what are you talkin about? You just described capitalism. Marxism doesn't have anything to do with taking things you haven't worked for. That is the core of capitalism. People should only be entitled to the well that they generate themselves with their own work. Do you really think an individual can convert their labour energy into a billion dollars? If your annual income was $100,000 a year after-tax, and you could save 100% of it each year , it would take you ten thousand years to accumulate a billion dollars. Capitalism makes this possible because it allows you to steal the wealth generated by other people's work. Just like when you capitalize on animals, like a cow or honey bees. People accumulate beehives so they can actually steal the wealth created by honey bees. If you can make a dollar off of each beehive per hour, and you have a million beehives, you can generate a million dollars per hour. and that's what capitalism is all about. I'm sure you've played the Monopoly board game. capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation so that you don't have to work for a living. those who don't have Capital have to pay rent in usage fees. why do you think the conversion to capitalism was so violent and bloody? Who wants to be human livestock? capitalism reduces human beings to livestock. if you are owned, if you are an employee, it doesn't matter what you're productive output is. It all goes to the owners a capital. for example, if you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't have twice as much milk. The farmer does. But if the cow is free, the more milk it produces, the more it has. There's the difference. if you take 50% of the honey from a beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've stolen. And that is why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week even though productivity levels have increased exponentially over the last hundred and fifty years. Working hours remain the same because people are owned under capitalism just like livestock. why do you think 80% of the world's population subsists on $10 a day or less? Why do you think 44% of the American population now earns $18,000 a year or less? It is because the wealth produced by their labour is being siphoned off by those who own most of the capital. The more Capital you own, the more wealth you can extract from other people's labour. and every time you have a dollar that goes to a non producer, somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar that he doesn't get. if your against theft. If your against exploitation, then you would be anti-capitalist. technically, capitalism is not even a real economic system because it violates Market and economic principles. If you expropriate most of the wealth produced by your workers so that they're earning only minimum wage, they then don't have the purchasing power to actually afford the very goods and services are producing in the first place. Consumption and jobs have to be maintained through debt. And that's why the Federal Reserve is currently pumping trillions of dollars into the economy at record low interest rates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1986Sane , dude, just do a Google search and a whole list of Thomas Sowell books and articles should come up. Here, I'll give you a list of claims that Thomas Sowell has made over the years that you can search for. I honestly don't know how you could possibly listen to that garbage.
▪ the Civil Rights Movement was a communist plot.
▪ social programs and financial aid for black people was a government conspiracy to keep African Americans enslaved.
▪ Compared Obama to Adolf Hitler.
▪ Tried to convince people that Obama was a socialist, even though it's quite clear from his political record that he is centre-right.
▪ Tries to convince people that socialism and fascism are identical, even though those ideologies are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
▪ says it's a myth that capitalism makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
▪ Capitalism is not inherently unstable: it wasn't responsible the Great Depression in any way, shape or form.
▪ Corporations don't earn obscene profits at the expense of consumers and workers.
▪ Corporations don't engage in predatory pricing, misleading advertising, and other deviations from the market ideal.
▪ Unrestrained capitalism doesn't lead to environmental destruction.
▪ Mergers and acquisitions have not concentrated economic and political power in fewer hands.
▪ Capitalism doesn't lead to globalism, which destroys culture and exacerbates inequality.
▪ Says government regulations are not necessary under capitalism to protect workers and consumers.
▪ claims that the free market will provide Fair wages and full employment for everyone, no government intervention needed.
▪ says there's absolutely no correlation between capitalism racism and segregation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mortson978 , for example, do you actually believe the information being disseminated by the reason foundation? Do you bother to cross reference information? You check to find out where organizations get their funding? Does the reason Foundation get most of its funding?
a few sources of funding:
1. Exxon Mobil , the world's largest oil company.
2. The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
3. Earhart Foundation = >>> the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Exxon, J.C. Penney, Chase Manhattan Bank, the American Enterprise Institute, which became a prominent source of ideas and people for the Reagan administration.
4. The Castle Rock Foundation, funding radically conservative organizations.
5. Altria Group, formerly Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco company. In the U.S. it controls about half of the tobacco market. It has 7 of the top 20 global cigarette brands. companies/ products include: Kraft Foods, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Maxwell House, etc.
6. The John M. Olin Foundation, The foundation closed after more than two decades of setting the stage for the NeoCon wave of the Reagan era. The Foundation gave $21 million to fund various right-wing think tanks including: Project for the New American Century (PNAC)!!! , Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Independent Women's Forum, which is an anti-feminist organization predominantly funded by right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch brothers' Claude R. Lambe Foundation. On its website, it describes its mission as being "to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thanks to socialists Americans aren't making $10 a day like some third world countries. Thanks to socialists we have the 8 hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, the right to unionize, child labour laws, Etc. Before so many socialist fought and died resisting capitalism there were 9 year old children working 16 hours a day. Back in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan, one in 11 workers would die from exhaustion. Thousands would die everyday from unsafe working conditions and a lack of consumer safety standards. People like JPMorgan would hire private police to shoot anyone who tried to organize.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41;30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshuavogann9369 , wow! I hope you don't really believe that stuff you're saying. Dude, the United States Empire is finished. Just like the British empire, the United States is in a downward spiral. It's already a third world country for almost half of its citizens. United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! 27! That's even worse than Portugal and lithuania. Almost 50% of the population is functionally illiterate. Things are so bad it's at almost half of the population has a mental illness or would develop one in their lifetime. Unfortunately, thanks to the corporations controlling most of the media, most Americans have a completely skewed Paradigm of reality.
The richest 1% now has just about as much wealth as a poorest 91% of the American population. I personally know Americans that are actually moving to china! Lol. And if you think things are bad now, you haven't seen anything yet. The Chinese will be telling their children to clean their plates because of the starving americans.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@statistdestroyer , you want me to learn economics? Well I'm trying. I still haven't grasped your last economic lesson. tell me again how two people trading with one another is a form of wealth creation. 😀 I'm still not clear on that. So if someone trades a dollar for a dollar, somehow that creates wealth? If I trade my radio for your TV, wealth was created? You're a genius! So intelligent.
Question: How do you create wealth without work?
Statist Destroyer (aka James Adams):
There are many ways to create wealth without labour.
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
None of those are examples of wealth creation. you moron. 😀
Let's look at some of your other asinine comments:
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
Yes they are. The less workers get paid the more profits go to the owners. You claim to have a master's degree in accounting. Then you should know in economics 101 you learn that profits are extracted from the four main factors of production which are: land, labour, capital and Entrepreneurship.
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor" because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Dude, the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population While most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population while 80% of the 7 billion people on the planet subsist on $10 a day or less. Yeah, capitalism causes massive inequality. This is another example of you not being able to differentiate between facts and assertions.
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or any inequality."
Of course capitalism causes depression. Everyone knows that capitalism is extremely unstable. Economic downturn lead to depression, suicide, increases in substance abuse, mental disorders, Etc.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ James Adams:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility.
You don't understand how social Mobility is calculated.
~ Global Social Mobility Index - the World Economic Forum
▪ James Adams:
" I have definitely study the topics of socialism more than you have."
▪ James Adams:
"of course a free market requires capitalism. Capitalism is not at all antithetical to free markets."
You don't understand that markets predate capitalism by thousands of years or that markets have never been free under capitalism.
▪ James Adams:
"there's nothing wrong with absolute capitalism"
What is that even supposed to mean? There's nothing wrong with pure, unregulated capitalism? No, of course corporations don't need to be regulated because they never endanger workers, exploit workers, poison the environment, produce dangerous products, would never exploit child labour.
▪ James Adams:
"You can only have a free market under capitalism."
Wow! 😃
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not right-wing, dumbass. The fascists used collectivism. State ownership. That is socialism by definition. Quit spamming when you can't even get basic definitions right."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalist companies never extract wealth from labour. Quit lying about it."
Cites Koch brother-funded 'Foundation for Economic Education'! aka 'FEE'
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's on the left!"
▪ James Adams:
"Joe Biden is not right wing! He's a leftist! He is center-left!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system of organizations. Socialism is top-down."
▪ James Adams:
"under capitalism workers always get paid the full value of their labour."
▪ James Adams:
"workers are never exploited under capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
" feudalism is not an oligarchy, because it's not defined by that word!" (this is a direct quote.)
This is the only quote that isn't verbatim:
"feudalism doesn't fall under the oligarchy category. They had a caste system."
There was simply too much nonsense for me copy it all. But the context is correct. You claimed that feudalism does not fall under the category of an oligarchy. 😀
1
-
@statistdestroyer , I haven't disappeared. I just get tired of listening to your nonsense. 😀 why do you think I don't talk to you on Skype anymore? You bore me to death. You're incapable of learning anything. You keep saying the same things over and over again.
How do you create wealth without work?
Statist Destroyer (aka James Adams):
There are many ways to create wealth without labour.
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
None of those are examples of wealth creation. you moron. 😀
Let's look at some of your other asinine comments:
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
Yes they are. The less workers get paid the more profits go to the owners. You claim to have a master's degree in accounting. Then you should know in economics 101 you learn that profits are extracted from the four main factors of production which are: land, labour, capital and Entrepreneurship.
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor" because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Dude, the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population While most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population while 80% of the 7 billion people on the planet subsist on $10 a day or less. Yeah, capitalism causes massive inequality. This is another example of you not being able to differentiate between facts and assertions.
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or any inequality."
Of course capitalism causes depression. Everyone knows that capitalism is extremely unstable. Economic downturn lead to depression, suicide, increases in substance abuse, mental disorders, Etc.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ James Adams:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility.
You don't understand how social Mobility is calculated.
~ Global Social Mobility Index - the World Economic Forum
▪ James Adams:
" I have definitely study the topics of socialism more than you have."
▪ James Adams:
"of course a free market requires capitalism. Capitalism is not at all antithetical to free markets."
You don't understand that markets predate capitalism by thousands of years or that markets have never been free under capitalism.
▪ James Adams:
"there's nothing wrong with absolute capitalism"
What is that even supposed to mean? There's nothing wrong with pure, unregulated capitalism? No, of course corporations don't need to be regulated because they never endanger workers, exploit workers, poison the environment, produce dangerous products, would never exploit child labour.
▪ James Adams:
"You can only have a free market under capitalism."
Wow! 😃
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not right-wing, dumbass. The fascists used collectivism. State ownership. That is socialism by definition. Quit spamming when you can't even get basic definitions right."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalist companies never extract wealth from labour. Quit lying about it."
Cites Koch brother-funded 'Foundation for Economic Education'! aka 'FEE'
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's on the left!"
▪ James Adams:
"Joe Biden is not right wing! He's a leftist! He is center-left!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system of organizations. Socialism is top-down."
▪ James Adams:
"under capitalism workers always get paid the full value of their labour."
▪ James Adams:
"workers are never exploited under capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
" feudalism is not an oligarchy, because it's not defined by that word!" (this is a direct quote.)
This is the only quote that isn't verbatim:
"feudalism doesn't fall under the oligarchy category. They had a caste system."
There was simply too much nonsense for me copy it all. But the context is correct. You claimed that feudalism does not fall under the category of an oligarchy. 😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anncl3983 , There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the Japan Post Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China (where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
@anncl3983 , Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Debra Charles , what assertion do you think I made? What part of what I said do you feel is an assertion?
what exactly is your argument? you honestly believe that a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical system where one worker gets one vote oh, you believe that can become a dictatorship? you're not making any sense. Even if workers didn't have 100% control, let's say the only had 85% control, is that not better than working at a capitals company where workers have zero control! is your argument that zero control is somehow better than workers sharing control equally, from the bottom up?
I've already provided a ton of data in this thread. I've also provided a huge list of different types of socially owned companies that exist in Europe. Why don't you listen to some worker testimony:
• Ocean Spray cranberry cooperative? 2000 employees produce roughly one and a half billion dollars annually. So how much do you think the workers get paid?
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
• Cooperative owners in Argentina https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
• when you pay your electric bill, when you buy a home, when you buy a condo, Etc, do you want to be buying these things at cost! Or do you want to be putting money into other the pocket of middlemen that aren't actually doing any work or contributing anything? https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
• shift change trailer https://youtu.be/8vJDhKMrncw
• these Cooperatives provide more equality, freedom and prosperity compared to capitalist Enterprises. Along with that they have acceptance, the advantage pooling their resources for their families and community, autonomy & Independence (allowed to be unique, it's actually valued instead of discouraged), teaching and education are part of the job -not just simply producing like a Mindless robot!, support, real and genuine concern for your fellow workers and community, sustainable development, etc, etc. https://youtu.be/NO-8iI7GW70
• Evergreen cooperatives! One of the reasons they exist is because it's impossible have a quality life when only making minimum wage. They provide people with a living wage. https://youtu.be/4zU8_ofpPyQ
• even in poor countries during the financial crisis, the workers are still making a living wage, often much more than their American counterparts. https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coolbeans6148 , capitalism is not the best thing that ever happened to humanity. I don't even know how you can possibly say such a thing. Under capitalism 80% of the world's population subsists on $10 a day or less. One child dies every 15 seconds from starvation even though we throw away 1.2 billion tons of food annually in order to artificially maintained prices in the capitalist Market.
Industry can't even run anywhere close to 100% capacity. That's because we have been able to produce far more than we're capable of consuming for a long time now. Probably since 1929. Every person on the planet could have a very high standard living and not even need to work 40 hours a week. I think the capitalism, most of the wealth gets concentrated into the hands of the few. Just like what you see in the Monopoly board game. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. Monopoly is inevitable. not only is an inevitable, it is the actual goal of capitalism. why do you think the board game is called Monopoly? the game was invented to simulate capitalism. capitalism is about to maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. It is economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy.
that's why the two richest people now have more wealth in the poorest half of the American population. that's why the eight richest people now have more wealth of the poorest half of the Earth's population.
okay, just for fun let's look at a socially owned bread factory in the United States. the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. can an assembly line worker make that much money at a capitalist company? of course not. that's because when you work at a capitalist company everything you produce belongs to the owner of the company. and because most of the resources and capital quickly get bought by the highest bidder, the richest 1% end up owning most of the shares. the richest 1% own something like 83% of world stocks. The richest 3% own something like 99%. that means that most of the wealth produced by labour goes to those owners. that means that most of the things made by labour actually belong to someone else.
but at the social Beyond bread factory the assembly line workers can make $70,000 a year because the bread they make actually belongs to the workers! if the workers make a million dollars worth of product, that money goes to them. But at a capitals company if the workers produce a million dollars worth of product, most of that money goes to idle shareholders, many of whom might not even be in the same country.
you can't have a free market in that kind of a situation. it's not possible. workers have to be able to afford the goods and services that they produce. if the workers produce $1,000 worth of product but most of that money goes to some rich shareholder, then obviously the workers are not going to be able to afford all the goods and services in circulation.
and then what happens if labor-saving technology is introduced? let's say a machine replaces 500 workers. At a capitals company it was 500 workers will end up on the unemployment line where they will have to compete with the other unemployed people. That competition drives the value of Labor down.
however, at a worker cooperative, if 500 workers are replaced with a machine, there are now five hundred workers to share the remaining workload. working hours can be decreased while income Remains the Same.
you see, most people under capitalism have to work 40 hours a week in order to survive. not only that, now it usually takes two people working 40 hours a week to support a family where before it only required one person. That's because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. just like if you were to give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. All of that milk belongs to the farmer. that's why we still have a 40 Hour Work Week.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , oh my god. You simply are not capable of comprehending what has been said. You don't understand that there has to be a balance between purchasing power and the goods/ services and circulation? Jobs are maintained through consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Yeah, you took economics 101. Couldn't be more obvious
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner there's nothing to answer. You haven't made any arguments. You can't argue against simple facts. When the workers on the company then they get all of the wealth. When they work for someone else, they don't. You saying over and over again that value is subjective or that labor doesn't create all value, that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Both worker owned companies and privately owned companies to have capital. Nothing you've said makes any sense. 😀 give it up. Your comprehension abilities are just too weak. What I'm saying is beyond your comprehension.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , no, you haven't made a single solitary argument. Everything you said is utter nonsense and has no relevance to the argument. When the workers on the company then they get all of the wealth and they get to make the rules. That has absolutely nothing to do with subjectivity and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Capital has value. Now do you actually have anything of relevance to say at all? Would you care to attempt to make some kind of argument?
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
@ExPwner , dude, you sound like a complete nut.
When the workers own the company then they get the wealth and they get to make the rules. They want to own the capital for the same reason that rich people want to own the capital. Because it provides wealth and power. This is not rocket science.
Now do you actually have an argument or not?
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
@ExPwner , dude, the debate doesn't have anything to do with Nazis or any of the other garbage that you brought up. You just keep deflecting. If you think the Nazis were a type of socialist, that's fine. I'm not going to argue history with you. If you don't know the difference between right and left, that's your problem. It's not my job to explain it to you. I've got much better things got to do with my time.
I'm here to argue the topics discussed in the debate. Which mode of production provides more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers.
Freedom: obviously the workers are going to have more freedom when they own the company. When you work at a capitalist company you have to do you're told. The boss can even tell you what you have to wear and when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
Prosperity: when the workers on the company then they get all of the wealth. That very basic Point has absolutely nothing to do with capital or subjectivity.
Equality: obviously when workers on the company they're going to have more equality with equal voting power compared to having no voting power at all!
Now what any of that has to do with Nazis or fascism, I have no idea. That doesn't have anything to do with subjectivity or capital.
Now stop deflecting and make an argument if you can. 😀
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , oh my god! I didn't say all the wealth comes from labor. That's why workers want to own their own company. If all wealth came from labor then they wouldn't need to own and control the means of production. You're not making any sense. Are you like one of those special needs persons? I have a question for you. If you can't read basic English how could you possibly have a high school diploma? You say you have a master's degree in accounting? Dude, please. :-)
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , that's right, workers cannot get the full value of their labor unless they actually own their own tools. Because when workers work for someone else, not only does their labor have to cover the cost of the investment and the tools and the maintenance, it also has to cover the profit for the capitalist.
Just like if you live in an apartment building. If you own the building, then your labor just has to cover the cost of the building, the fridge, the stove, the maintenance, etc. But if you live in a private apartment building that someone else owns, your labor still has to cover all of those things. On top of having to pay for all of those things you also have to pay for the landlord and his lifestyle. You have any idea how many people now have to work 3 weeks out of the month just to make enough to cover their rent? Going to work I'm working for free. The landlord gets those paychecks instead of you.
That's why workers want to own their own capital. That way they don't have to waste extra years from their life producing wealth for someone else.
I know all of these things are way too complicated for you to comprehend. I'm really really sorry for you. What can I say.
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
@ExPwner , you still haven't made an argument. Nothing you've said has anything to do with the argument or the facts.
Again, the fact is trees do not turn themselves into houses.
The fact is companies such as Walmart and Amazon cannot exist without wage labor.
It's a fact that when workers work for someone else they do not get all of the wealth and they do not get to make the rules. But when they do own their own company, they do get all of the wealth and they do get to make the rules. This is a fact. Not an opinion.
Now I'm going to ask you for the millionth time. Do you have an argument or not? Do you have anything relevant to say or not?
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
@ExPwner , yes I have.
Which mode of production provides more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities? Obviously worker and community ownership does. Just like private ownership of the means of production provides more freedom and prosperity for people such as Jeff bezos, Bill gates, etc. Not exactly rocket science.
You need to learn what an argument is. You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. 😀
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most people are not happy being employees. Statistically speaking, when workers own their own companies and factories, they are happier, more productive, more creative, they take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of mental illness, depression, substance abuse, suicide, Etc.
Who said employers shouldn't be able to decide how much they pay their employees? Yeah, when you own the business you can pay your employees whatever you want to. You can do whatever you want with the business. No one said otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@calebverdu3091 , yes, Richard Wolff is suggesting that people get together and form their own cooperatives or join a cooperative. he wants to make it easier for people form cooperatives. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives because there are fewer barriers and it's easier for people to obtain the financing they need.
Second, there's no such thing as a free market under capitalism. Have you read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith? Free markets require economic democracy. Capitalism is economic feudalism. the market is only free for those who own the capital. we had a free market most products wouldn't be made in China and wages wouldn't be so low.
If you are truly interested in free markets, then you would be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. Socialism is conducive to free markets and thriving economies. Capitalism is not. Capitals and violates basic market and economic principles.
For example, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium if wages are not commensurate with production output? Under capitalism people try to expropriate as much profit as they can from labour, therefore they suppress wages as much as possible while maximising production output. but then you have a situation where the workers can't actually afford all the goods and services they are producing in the first place. that creates a serious problem because pubs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. That creates a domino effect, a downward spiral. when workers get laid off they have to compete with all of the other unemployed people and that drives the value of Labor down even further. people have to work faster and harder for less money in order to compete for the remaining jobs. as competition increased, people become even more fearful of losing their jobs. poverty and unemployment are natural by-products of the capitalist system. We could easily have full employment. in fact, every person on Earth could have a very high standard living while only working 10 hours a week.
the only way to keep the economy from Contracting is by offsetting any erosion of purchasing power with access to credit. that's why there's so much debt, that's why they keep raising the debt ceiling and why interest rates are so low. Capitalism is a debt based system. if you have to bake 10 loaves of bread so that you can afford one loaf, where does the money come from to buy the other nine loaves? if you spend $500 every time you earned $50, what would the consequence be?
Obviously you can't have an economic system where production output is expanding many times faster then wages. Capitalism is a religion. It is literal economic feudalism. Again, that's why wages are so low, why most things are made in China and why we still have a 40 Hour Work Week. you see, all increase in productivity go to the owners of capital. Just like when the farmer increases milk output by a cow. Since the cow is like the weight slave, all the milk goes to the farmer. industry can't even come close to running at 100% capacity. we could have a 10 hour work week and still could produce far more than we're capable of consuming. The problem is that under capitalism people are depended upon a 40-hour work week in order to survive. That's why we have planned obsolescence. under capitalism we literally have to figure out a way to get people to throw away things faster in order to keep people working needlessly so that wealth can be extracted from their labour.
anyway, to say that we have a free market or that there's nothing stopping people from starting their own Cooperative or business, that's simply not true. I can't even believe you made that statement. don't you understand that we want to achieve economic democracy so that we can actually have a free market? https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewwolf3531 , when you work for someone else you can never get the full value of your labor. It's not possible. You have to create more wealth for them than what they actually pay you or there wouldn't be any profit.
For example, let's say you shovel driveways for a living. $100 per driveway. No one else can afford a shovel. Let's say it represents a multi-million dollar means of production. So let's say there's hundreds of thousands of over-educated desperate people looking for work. So you decide to cash in on the opportunity. Why shovel driveways yourself when you can just pay someone else to do it for you? Well if each driveway is worth $100 it wouldn't be possible for you to pay the work $100. Because if you did then they would be no money in it for you. The only way the worker can get the full $100 is by owning his own shovel. That's why you can never ever get the full value of your labor when working for someone else.
There's a socially owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make over $70,000 a year. Technically speaking their labor produces much less wealth than an assembly line worker at walmart. But they're able to make $70,000 a year unlike the Walmart employee because they actually own the product of their labor. If they produce a million dollars worth of bread, they have a million dollars. If you produce a million dollars worth of product at walmart, you get minimum wage.
And the capitalist will always extract more and more wealth from your labor. It's just how capitalism works.
For example, look at TV commercials. At one time an hour TV show would have about 4 minutes worth of commercial time. Then it slowly increased to 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes, now you're looking at almost 50/50.
Likewise, a person used to have to work basically one day for free in order to get enough money to pay for the rent. Then a person had to work for 2 days in order to cover their rent. Now a person literally works for nothing for 3 weeks out of four just to pay their landlord. Why work for a living if you can just collect other people's paychecks as a landlord? It's slavery.
And again, it works the exact same way when you work for someone else. Back in the 1970s on average when you 8 hours for someone you would get paid maybe for 7 hours. And then slowly that decreased. You would work for 8 hours and only get paid for six. And then five. Corporate profits continued to increase at a faster rate than wages. So we are working 40 hours a week but literally getting paid less and less.
Capitalism is a modern form of slavery. Wage slavery is almost as bad as chattel slavery. Yes, as a wage slave you can actually choose your master. You even have the possibility of making the transition to a Slave owner. Those are the two major differences between a wage slave and a chattel slave. But it's still slavery. That back used to be recognized by everyone back in the late 1800s early 1900s. That's why the Republican Party back then was even against wage slavery. Now today most people don't even recognize it as being a forum of slavery. It's just something that's natural.
If you don't own the product of your labor, then you're basically nothing more than human livestock. Just like the dairy cow.
1
-
@matthewwolf3531 , workers are the experts that know what to do with investments. Capitalists depend on those experts. Labor includes both mental and physical efforts. Most capitalists don't have a clue. They use their money to pay the best economists money can buy.
Of course workers at cooperatives take a portion of the earnings and put it toward Innovation and expansion. There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker owned companies. There is a Cooperative that has over 100,000 workers that own their own hospital, high tech research laboratories, university, they have their own pension plan, welfare system, various types of factories, etc. Their research and development departments are so Advanced they have contracts with Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company the intel, just to mention a few. They're expanding all the time. One worker equals one share. The most important thing is that the workers together decide how much money they're going to put aside for expansion and innovation.
Statistically speaking, workers at socialist companies are more productive, more creative, take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of mental illness, the business is far more efficient, etc. Honest capitalists will actually admit that fact. Some honest capitalists have even taken advantage of the increased productivity such freedom creates. Here is just one example,
https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@THETRIVIALTHINGS , well I don't know why you think that socialism is more likely to become a dictatorship. It depends on how the government is structured. capitalism requires a huge government and always runs the risk of becoming fascist. At least socialism is on the other side of the political Spectrum.
There are three main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises.
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
He's not suggesting that people give up their private businesses. In fact, if we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is referring to is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
@THETRIVIALTHINGS , dude, you're acting as if all incidences of socialism are bad. that's simply not true. It depends on the structure of your government.
there are 3 main types of ownership:
there is private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), & you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), which is the type of Coop/socialism being discussed in the video.. https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kal-el5535 , what are you talkin about? There are literally thousands of examples of bottom-up systems of social organization.
Consider the Paris commune, or consider the 135 thousand workers in Spain that own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. One worker equals one vote. It's a bottom-up system.
The workers get paid the full value of their labour and they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. They don't have to worry about some CEO or board of directors forcing them to pollute their environment, like what happened in Flint Michigan with the water supply.
They don't have to worry about a dictatorial owner moving production to China! They don't have to worry about Boards of directors cutting their wages in order to increase profits. And because they get paid the full value of their labour, they have a lot more money to spend in to their Community, which means smaller businesses thrive.
in that environment if 50 workers are replaced by automation, you end up with 50 extra workers to share in the remaining workload. but under a capitalist system those 50 workers would end up on the unemployment line where they would have to compete with one another for jobs that are continuously decreasing in number. That competition actually drives down the value of Labor. and that is not conducive to a free market. workers need enough money to actually be able to purchase the very goods and services that they're creating in the first place. That's why capitalism is technically an anti economic system. it's not conducive to free markets. socialism is conducive to free markets and prosperity because wealth actually stays with the wealth producers. that was the argument that Richard Wolff was making.
You see, as things are now, both workers and consumers are depended upon corporations for both jobs and consumer goods. Most of the population on Earth is dependant upon these few people that own these corporations. That's why we're in a situation where we end up doing most of the work but they get most of the money. We need to free ourselves from this state of dependency.
If we start producing our own goods and services and our own jobs, then we can keep wealth where it belongs, with us!
When wealth actually stays with the wealth producers and the community, then workers make more money! And when workers make more money, they can spend more into their communities. So that way you end up with more people with jobs making pizza, cutting hair, bowling alleys, entertainment centres, Etc.
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bloodcamarosexmagik4223 , no, that's not true. Under socialism the people have control over the government. that's why it's called social. Same thing with socialist workplaces. Workers own and control their own factories and businesses. They do their own work. They don't capitalize on someone else's labour. They run the companies collectively and democratically. It's a form of social organization that is bottom-up and non-hierarchical. One worker equals one vote. You also have community-owned workplaces. For example, almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from community-owned electrical cooperatives. Would you rather have Communists electricity or capitalist electricity? worker testimony video https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
▪ fact sheet
https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
Just like with private insurance companies. Every time you go to the doctor, every time you use kilowatt of energy, do you really want to be putting money into someone else's pocket it doesn't actually work for a living? Do you really want to the funding some parasites lifestyle? Where I live I pay about $10 a month for electricity. That's because it's publicly owned. Our Hydro is a state-owned Enterprise.
under capitalism the government is owned and controlled by the owners of capital. It is their government. It is their economic system. the government does not represent the working class. Under capitalism the working class is nothing more then another commodity. The renter class.
some labour history:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
"The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence."
when you work as an employee, the boss tells you when you work, how hard you have to work, Etc. they can cut your wages, your working hours, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
From <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith>
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
page 410 http://www.ultimorecurso.org.ar/drupi/files/Adam%20Smith%20%27The%20Wealth%20of%20Nations%27.pdf
1
-
1
-
@bloodcamarosexmagik4223 , dude, capitalism is not a viable system. It violates basic market and economic principles. Don't you understand it's a religion? capitalism is full of contradictions. For example, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium between supply and demand. You can't do that under capitalism because production output increases at a faster rate than wages. If you have most of the money you going to idle shareholders and billionaires rather than the actual workers, the workers are not going to be able to afford all the goods and services they produce. Jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. They have to compete with one another for the remaining jobs. That drives wages downward while increasing production output even further. Any erosion of purchasing power has to be offset with access to credit. But ultimately the interest attached to the credit Will just serve to reduce purchasing power even further.
however, worker-owned companies don't have that problem. That's because workers actually own the product of their labour. If they produce a million dollars worth of product, that money stays with the workers and communities. Therefore you have a balance between supply and demand. wages are commensurate with production output.
and you can't say it's a pipe dream, because we know exactly how well worker-owned companies perform compared to capitalist Enterprises. Worker-owned companies benefit workers and communities more than capitalist companies. They provide more equality, freedom and prosperity. the workers are their own bosses, they get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces, and there's more equality because they have equal voting power. sovereignty stays with the workers.
1
-
@bloodcamarosexmagik4223 , seriously? 40 million people in the United States live in poverty. The vast majority of Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. they live from check to check. Most people can't take so much as a day off of work in order to look for another job. There are serious barriers the starting a business in the United States if you're in debt. people that have a ton of debt, student loans, Etc, they have a hard enough time borrowing money for something like a mortgage or car, which the bank can repossess If need be. you think they're going to loan money to such people for the purpose of starting a business or a Cooperative in a precarious economic environment? There's a reason why the United States comes in at number 27 in regards to social Mobility. there's a reason why regions in Europe at 44% of the GDP coming from worker cooperatives. we know exactly how worker-owned companies compare to capitalist Enterprises. there's no shortage of hard empirical data to go by.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , who is denying genocide? 😃 Which country has committed more acts of genocide than the United States?
Accordingly, members of the ‘free world’ competed with one another in denouncing the Soviet Union for the 75 years it existed. But at no time was ‘the free world’ exposed to such criticism by the same criteria of people murdered, killed, starved, persecuted, silenced or dispossessed. Yet its operations were no less subject to humane concern – for example, over two million Vietnamese, over a million Latin Americans, over one million Indonesians and over three million Algerian and sub-Sahara Africans killed by ‘the forces of the free world’ during the same period.
The twentieth century has come to be known as the Age of Massacre, but the mind-bias at work in blocking out one side of the massacre has been repressed from view.
Just in my lifetime the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, mostly democracies. It has interfered in democratic elections in 30 countries. It has dropped bombs on the people of 30 countries, most of them poor and defenceless. It has attempted to murder the leaders of 50 countries. It has fought to suppress liberation movements in 20 countries.
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
China 1945-46
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
El Salvador 1980s
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958Laos 1964-73
Grenada 1983
Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015-
Iran 1987
Korea 1950-53
Kuwait 1991
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986, 2011-
Nicaragua 1980s
Pakistan 2003, 2006-Palestine 2010
Panama 1989
Peru 1965
Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-
Sudan 1998
Syria 2014-
Vietnam 1961-73
Yemen 2002, 2009-
Yugoslavia 1999.
The United States has been committing acts of genocide from the time of the founding fathers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a mass murderer! Over 160 years ago he was responsible for the largest mass execution in US history when when he ordered the killing of 38 Dakota Nation members.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even before there were central banks capitalism was unstable. Of course capitalism is unstable. It violates basic market and economic principles. For example, capitalist corporations want to maximize their profit by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. But what is the consequence? Jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. You have a domino effect. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. You can't do that when production output is increasing at a faster rate than wages. The main goal of capitalism is in direct opposition to that basic principle. That's why they pump so much credit into the system. But it's only a matter of time before rates of consumption start to slow, people get laid off, and shareholders dump their stocks.
You see, you can capitalize on animals, such as honey bees, because if you take too much honey from The Beehive, the bees just starve. But if you take 50% of the wealth produced by workers, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 50% of what they're producing. Where did they get the purchasing power to afford the other 50%? You see there is a natural limitation, a ceiling limit, when it comes to how much wealth you can extract from labour. Fractional Reserve banking allows the capitals class to circumvent that limitation.
Workers under capitalism are nothing more than human livestock. When you don't own the product of your labour, you were basically nothing more than a human cow! And that's why labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours. If you give bovine growth hormone to a cow in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't get twice the amount of milk. It doesn't get twice the amount of wealth or to work half as many hours. All the milk belongs to the farmer. Likewise, it doesn't matter how much wealth worker produces with his labour. Everything he produces belongs to someone else. That's why it's possible for an assembly line worker to make $70,000 a year at a socially own bread factory but not while working at a company such as Amazon or Walmart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nefuros551 , Marxism is a method of analyzation. 99% of Karl Marx work involved analyzing capitalism. He had very little to say about Socialism or communism. He didn't come up with Socialism or communism. Is Marxism or Karl Marx have to do with the argument? Most workers do not want to be wage slaves. They want to be free. They want to extricate themselves from capitalist slavery. That's why they want to own their own companies and factories. That way they don't have to sell their labour for a fraction of its worth. That's why they prefer socialism over capitalism. A Walmart worker probably produces $100,000 worth of wealth with his labour annually. Maybe even more. There's a socially on bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year just putting bread into a bag! So you can only imagine how much an assembly line worker is producing at a massive company such as Walmart or Amazon. So tell me, what is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy? A worker getting paid $70,000 a year? Or a worker that gets minimum wage? Who was going to have more purchasing power? Which worker is going to be able to afford more stuff? Which person is going to be able to create more demand? You see, that's one reason why socialism is actually more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. Again, capitalism erodes purchasing power. That is not conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. If you have to pay an extra $5 to Bill Gates every time you get your blood tested, that's five less dollars you have to buy goods and services produced by your fellow workers.
There is no justification for capitalism. You don't need it in order to have a business. You don't need capitalism in order to have a market. You don't need capitalism in order to have production. So why would anyone support capitalism other than those people that are extracting a huge amount of wealth from capital?
And I already told you that traditional exposure ilysm doesn't have anything to do with the government. What Richard Wolff is talking about in regards to worker-owned companies, that makes people less dependant upon the government. That decentralizes power. It doesn't increase it. So if you're against government, then you would be in favour of what Richard Wolff is talking about. Capitalism requires a huge government because it's the only way a small minority of rich people can control most of the capital and wealth on the planet. It's their government. It's their economic system. The government is controlled by the richest members of the capitalist Society. That's how capitalism works.
1
-
1
-
the point is, when Amazon or Walmart produces 25 billion dollars in sales, most of that money goes to Idol shareholders, many of whom might not even be in the same country. but, when a socially own company, such as Mondragon in Spain, when they produce 25 billion dollars in sales, that money goes to the workers. That's the point.
Can assembly line worker makes $70,000 a year when they work at a capitalist company as an employee? No. Of course not. Why? Because they do not own the product of their labour. When you do not own the product of your labour, you are nothing more than human livestock. It doesn't matter how hard you work. It doesn't matter how fast you work. It doesn't matter if you produce a million dollars worth of bread. Every loaf that you make belongs to someone else. So, if you make a million dollars with a bread, you've basically made someone else a million dollars.
But at a socially owned company, when the workers make a million dollars worth of bread, they get to keep all of that money. And they get to be their own bosses. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
did you know that almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from community and socially owned cooperatives? yeah, maybe you're using communist electricity right now! So, what do you think? you think communist bread and electricity is better than the capitalist version? would you rather work and serve your community or would you rather work and serve some billionaire like Trump? think about it. https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
cuz guess what? in my opinion, communist and socialist bread tastes way way way better than any capitalist bread. 😃
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's talking about people not knowing much about political Theory which doesn't actually understand what socialism is and says that he still prefers capitalism over socialism. When workers own their own companies in factories, then they get to be their own boss. Obviously they're going to have more freedom. Obviously if workers own their own companies and factories are going to have more equality because they have equal voting power. That's a hell of a lot better than working under a dictatorship when the boss gets to the side when you have to get up in the morning, how long you have to work, when and how long you can go to the washroom, what you have to wear, what time you can eat, some capitals companies even demand that their employees keep a smile on their face at all times. Why should the richest members of society get to choose how much workers get paid and what is produced, where things are produce, what is produced, Etc. The consequence of that is that most of the wealth goes to the richest members of society and most things are now made in China and workers can no longer afford a family on a single income. But of course he supports capitalism over socialism because I suspect he's a corporate shill. He makes a lot of money from capitalist advertising. And the consequence of that is that things are more expensive, workers don't get paid as much and people have to work longer in order to pay for such advertising. But he gets the profit from that so it's understandable that he's likes to play both sides of the fence. Too bad he doesn't have any integrity. Disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , nothing you've said has anything to do with the argument. Yeah, of course people can start businesses under capitalism, what does that have to do with anything? Cooperatives are actually more productive, stable and innovative. Workers are happier, more productive, more creative, they take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of depression, suicide, substance abuse, Etc. And because people are a lot less likely to be laid off when working at a Cooperative, that has a major influence on crime, mental disorders, murder rates, etc, Etc.
▪ study number 1:
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ Study number 2:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 3:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 4:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 5:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 6:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bill_Cosby717 , not every economic model consumes resources at the rate capitalism does. Not even close. Capitalism is dependant upon extreme waste. How can you not know this? And its consumption is exponential. Just like cancer! Don't you understand why cancer patients are so thin and emaciated? It's because the Cancer has an ever-growing need for resources. Just like capitalism.
You seriously don't understand how competition for resources and markets causes War? You don't understand how capitalism massively increases competition for resources and markets? Dude, capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials."
~ Global Change Programme Vol. 7: No. 3 (1996), and Earthscan Books, 1997.
You have any idea what it takes to feed the capitalist machine? There are billionaires out there making a hundreds of thousands of dollars per second from their Capital Holdings. Where do you think that wealth comes from? What do you think that wealth and level of consumption is dependant upon? The US has military bases all around the world in order to protect the capital of the Fortune 500. I would recommend reading The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. It's one of the major works of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski
seriously, you don't understand how capitalism drives War? Capitalism cause extreme competition for profit. That competition necessitates controlling key resources. You know, such as oil. of course imperialism and capitalism are two different things. But they are intertwined. The United States has 4% of the world's population but uses up over 30% of the resources.
Africa is a rich continent. The people are poor because their resources are overexploited. It was the carving up of Africa, the competition among competing capitalist countries over African resources, that led to World War 1. Industrialized nations needed a reliable source of raw materials along with new markets in order to sell their mass-produced goods. Capitalism caused World War 1, not just the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914
1
-
@Bill_Cosby717 , let me reiterate and expand on capitalism's need for waste and consumption:
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
Not only does capitalism cause War, it is dependant upon War.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@haziq9130 , critique? I think the data speaks for itself.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nolanarmstrong2458 , no, I'm not assuming anything. The fact that everyone is not responsible, hardworking and honest, that is more of an argument for socialism compared to capitalism. Under socialism people are only entitled to but they work for. They get paid according to their contribution. So if you're lazy, guess what? You don't get paid! But under capitalism, lazy people can have a very serious negative impact on the rest of society, especially if they're in positions of power. Lazy people are attracted to capitalism because you don't have to work for a living. Capitalism is about owning for a living. That's why capitalism is so attractive to parasites. billionaires by up apartment buildings, grocery stores, electric companies, parking lots, Etc. Then they live off of other people's labour.
Not too long ago Bill Gates bought the Canadian railroad. His wealth went from 80 to 90 billion dollars as a result. 10 billion dollars no longer going to Canadian workers and infrastructure. That means Canadians are going to have 10 billion dollars less to spend into the economy. you didn't use that money to buy a newly privatized Labs were people get their blood tested. now every time you get a blood test you have to pay extra money to Bill Gates for that privilege. if five extra dollars has to go to Gates oh, that's five less dollars you have to buy goods and services from your fellow workers. That's why capitalism is destructive to markets and economies.
what's stopping people from starting a business or a Cooperative? Most people are living from check to check. most Americans cannot afford a family on a single income. They can't even afford to take time off of work to look for another job. People are into debt up to their ears. it's hard enough getting a loan just for a car or a mortgage, the banks are more likely to make those loans because they have the house to repossess. But you think they're going to lend money to someone who's in debt for the purpose of starting a business in a Precarious economic environment? I can't even believe you're asking these questions. there are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. Why? Because there are fewer barriers and people have access to Capital. the United States only comes in at number 27 in regards to social Mobility. most people are not in a position to change jobs let alone start a business.
And no, expanding The Cooperative sector is not going to result in genocide or people dying from starvation. workers owning their own companies in factories increases wealth and prosperity. so no, Marx's ideas do not always result in genocide. That is a- historical and empirically false.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually
1
-
@jean-pierredevent970 , under the capitalist system the government's represent the owning class. They do not represent the working class. All the working-class can do is fight for Privileges and protections under the law. Under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. That's why they get most of the wealth produced by labour and why they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, what kind of environment people after Labor in, Etc. When you control the capital you control the economy and government. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China.
But when the workers only control their own companies in factories, then they get most of the wealth produced by their labour. They get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, Etc. Worker-owned companies are tied to the community. They make workers add communities less dependant upon government and capitalist corporations. We are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. When workers have more money the economy expands because they can spend more. Capitalism erodes purchasing power because the goal is to maximize profits by keeping wages as low as possible. That creates a huge disparity between supply and demand.
People should only be entitled to what they work for. People should be paid according to their contributions,. The function of capitalism is to extract wealth from labour. Problem is, people are not honey bees. They need to be able to afford the goods and services are actually producing. If you take too much honey from The Beehive, the bees die. If you extract too much well from labour, consumption slows and people get laid off. That's one of the reasons why we have fractional Reserve banking now. Capitalism is a human livestock management system. The only reason people are working 40 hours a week or longer it's because wages are so low they have to work that long. It's not because we can't meet the needs of society with half as many hours
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BoonTobias What are you talking about? Fact: capitalism causes poverty and extreme inequality. Fact: poverty and inequality increase crime and violence.
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner ,
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist." Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
▪ Here's an example of Mr Adams reading comprehension. 😃
https://youtube.com/shorts/jxPulUGuBHU?feature=share
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chucklee9291 , capitalism does not breed economic freedom. How could you possibly make such a statement? Seriously? Capitalism is based on exploitation. It is literally the economic system of parasites. It's a two-class system which is a modern form of slavery.
Under the capitalist system most of the capital it's owned by the richest members of society, therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. Do you have any idea how crazy that is? Also, they get to make most of the decisions in regard what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. Saying that economic feudalism breeds Freedom, that justifies logic and reason. You should get most of the wealth produced by your labour, not someone else. You shouldn't have to pay extra money to some capitalist owner every time you buy toilet paper or get a blood test.
If you are truly interested in free markets and people being rewarded for hard work, then you would be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. Socialism it's about freedom. Socialism is the freedom to actually own the product of your labour. If you don't own the product of your labour, it's someone else does, then you are basically nothing more than human livestock.
For example, if a farmer give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does the cow get to work half as many hours? Does the cow end up with twice the amount of wealth? No. All of that milk belongs to the farmer. That's why even though labor-saving technology has more than tripled the production output of Labor, people still have to work 40 hours a week. Almost everything produced by Labour under the capitalist system belongs to someone else.
Capitalism does not read economic freedom. It does provide extreme freedom for a small minority at the expense of the vast majority, but so did slavery in the Antebellum South.
Would you really call this freedom?
https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
1
-
@skmanunited , no, capitalism is not a wonderful system because it allows the richest people in society to own all the capital. That is economic feudalism. It's extremely undemocratic. Instead of one worker equal in one vote , you have a situation where one share equals one vote. That's what we call a plutocracy. Rule by money. Apocracy is not a good system in which to organize Society. I don't know where you would ever get the idea that it was. It's all right when you play a game such as monopolies, but yeah, for organizing Society in people's lives, not so good.
you see, billionaires will always be able to afford more shares than your average citizen. Therefore they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why workers have to form unions and fight for labour safety laws, Etc. That's why wages are so low. If workers don't accept cuts or unsafe working conditions, my company can threaten to move production to China.
you say that human nature is the problem. Well if that's true, all the more reason not to have capitalism. Capitalism gives those of the top extreme power over those underneath. However if you have an economic system that's based on Democracy, then you don't have that problem. Democratic systems are bottom up and non-hierarchical. They're not prone to corruption because everyone gets an equal vote.
So no, economic feudalism is not the best system when you're dealing with human nature or organizing Society. Economic democracy is the best system for organizing Society.
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
The Loner Millionaire , everything in that video is accurate. And what do you mean, left-leaning person? If it wasn't for the left, you'd be living under pure capitalism. There would be no 8 hour day, five-day work week, old age pensions, unions, child labour laws, consumer safety standards, Etc. You know, like life used to be back in the day of JP Morgan, Carnegie Rockefeller, Etc. When 9 year old children had to work 16 hours a day so families could afford enough to Have enough to eat. Do you think that video is propaganda, I would recommend reading a people's History of the United States. 😃
1
-
The Loner Millionaire , that's simply not true. most of the technological innovations and prosperity are thanks to the Scientific Revolution which occurred 500 years ago. Like I already pointed out, if it wasn't for so many people who fought and died resisting capitalism, chances are pretty good that we'd still be making a dollar a day like in some third-world countries. You wouldn't even be able to afford a PC. Also, capitalism is not capable of the type of research required for such Innovations as computers and microchips, Etc. Computers, processors, the internet, GPS, cellular phone technology, Etc all of that was developed in the public sector. Capitalism actually hinders innovation. Capitalism only provides short-term research and Innovation and for such things that are they're going to be profitable.
I shouldn't need to tell you that businesses and markets are not unique to capitalism. you don't need capitalism in order to have innovation or production. The first portable phone was developed in Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany was many times more Innovative than capitalist countries. Thanks to their V2 Rockets we're able to have spaceflight and satellites. There was incredible technological innovation during slave societies. Is that a justification for slavery? Of course not.
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
Dependence on extreme waste: "It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are 7 defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
John McMurtry
~ http://www.jaunimieciai.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism.pdf
Part 1 https://youtu.be/b4JsCEYpIUA
part 2 https://youtu.be/DvbhzMFWLk0
1
-
1
-
The Loner Millionaire , so, not only do you not see assembly line workers making $70,000 a year at a capitalist company, thanks to capitalism most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Real wages in the United States have an increase into 1970. The percentage of GDP in the United States going to workers have steadily been decreasing since 1950! that's why 80% of Americans are living from Check to Check and can't afford a $500 emergency.
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html
• starving Americans form one quarter mile-long line up at Food Bank https://trib.al/jSmp1t0
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/child-homelessness-highest-in-more-than-decade-feds-say/?platform=hootsuite
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/21/low-wage-work-is-more-pervasive-than-you-think-and-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/
>>> https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪︎ Low-Wage Jobs are the New American Normal.
Low-wage workers make up nearly half of the American workforce, and many of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-american-normal
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costs-administration/more-than-a-third-of-us-healthcare-costs-go-to-bureaucracy-idUSKBN1Z5261
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
■ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
■ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪︎ With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds.
~ https://www.mintpressnews.com/harvesting-blood-americas-poor-late-stage-capitalism/263175/
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
▪︎ Companies Spend $340 Million Annually To Stop Workers From Organizing.
Would you prefer that the wealth created by your labour goes into your pocket, or to be used to keep you suppressed and your wages low?
http://labor411.org/411-blog/companies-spend-340-million-annually-to-stop-workers-from-organizing/
1
-
The Loner Millionaire ,
“the bottom half of Americans combined have a negative net worth and rely almost solely on income and credit to get by." ~
Ben Steverman, “The Wealth Detective Who Finds the Hidden Money of the Super Rich,” Bloomberg Businessweek, May 23, 2019.
And how about the so-called American Dream? Social mobility in the United States is almost zero. in fact, when measured against other countries, when it comes to social Mobility, the United States comes in at number 27! South Korea, Portugal and Lithuania have a higher level of social Mobility. can you imagine. If you want to live the American dream, your chances are better if you move to Lithuania. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-of-82-countries/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisrayne3274 , dude, whether you're talking about social Mobility or people owning the product of their labor by starting your own business, you have the same problem. Don't you understand why the ratio between the working-class and the owning class always remains basically the same? You have roughly a 90-10 ratio. You honestly don't know what's stopping people from starting their own business? Have any idea how difficult it is to compete against third world slave labor? State of the art automation? The ability to provide goods and services under cost until your smaller competitors go bankrupt? The ability to afford multi-billion-dollar advertisements and prizes? You're saying that anyone can start their own business and succeed, that's like saying that anyone in the United States can become president. LOL it's kind of like playing the lottery. For everyone person that does achieve becoming a business owner, you have thousands that fail. Because the ratio always remains roughly the same, that means that for every one person that succeeds, and other person ends up getting pushed down. My god, social Mobility index in the United States is number 27! I know, I know, 85% of the population just chooses dead in, low paying jobs with no benefits. But yeah, anyone if they really wanted to, all 85%, could you start own business because there's absolutely no barriers. 😀
You have some studying to do.
1
-
@chrisrayne3274 , here are just a few stats before the pandemic!
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. That number 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
Millions of workers in “the world’s wealthiest country” are forced to sell their blood in order to survive. The Washington Post featured a 41-year-old teacher with a $50,000 salary who sells plasma twice per week to get by. “I never thought I would be in a position where I would have to sell my plasma to feed my children,” said Christina Seal of Slidell, Louisiana. “I’ve applied for every government program that I can think of. I don’t qualify for food stamps, I don’t qualify for any programs.” The Post explained that plasma donations “have quadrupled since 2006.”
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisrayne3274 , you honestly think the only system that works the one that allows billionaires to own most of the capital and get most of the wealth produced by labor? There is no alternative? 😃 you really believe that? That's what the ruling class says and you believe it?
Dude, the workers do all of the work anyway. They are the scientists, the engineers, the accountants, the managers, etc. Capitalists are Middle Men.
There's a Cooperative in Spain where there's close to 100,000 workers that own their own hospital, university, high tech research labs, production facilities, etc. Their research departments are so Advanced they get contracts with Microsoft, Ford, and intel. Just to name a few. There's another region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker-owned companies. There's hundreds of thousands of worker own companies all over the world. So we know that socialism works. Capitalism is not the only effective mode of production.
Capitalism is not a viable system. Technically, it's not even an economic system. It's an anti-economic system. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when the goal is to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible and getting workers to produce as much as possible? 😀 if 75% of the wealth goes to the owners of capital, then the workers are only going to have 25% of the purchasing power needed to consume what they produce.
Socialist companies don't have that problem because workers get the full value of their labor. There's a socialist break Factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year. They make that much because they own the product of their labor. There's equilibrium between purchasing power and production output.
What happened to socialism in Russia after the workers emancipated themselves from the rule of the czar back in 1917? What was the first thing the United States did? They got together with Canada, Germany, France and Japan to overthrow those workers. They sent troops into Russia to crush the Socialist movement. The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922! For the entire time the Soviet Union existed the United States and other countries did everything in their power to destroy them. And because they were under consonant attack they had no choice but to put a hierarchical command structure in place and as a consequence were never able to make the transition to full socialism. On top of sending troops into the country, United States also funded and weaponized the white Army. They did the same thing in Afghanistan when they funded and weaponize the mujahideen and Taliban for the purpose of overthrowing the Socialist democracy.
Look at cuba. Same thing. If socialism didn't work, the United States could just sit back and let them fall apart naturally. Despite the heavy sanctions and constant sabotage, the Cuban people actually do a lot better than most Americans in a lot of aspects.
What happened to the Democracy in Afghanistan back in the '70s? When the citizens put back their land and government from the landlords, the United States funded and weaponized the mujahzadine and Taliban for the purpose of destroying that democracy. Their job was to overthrow the government. United States national security advisor would meet with the Taliban personally! He's on video saying how they're going to make Russia bleed for as long as it takes. The mujah dean and Taliban were able to overthrow the democratic government in Afghanistan in 1979. For a brief time women were allowed to go on dates, Drive cars, participate in the government, the workers had control of their own land, etc. They got rid of the Opium and started growing food crops. Of course when the government was overthrown Warlords started growing opium again which the United States utilized a large portion of. Not my opinion, check out the National Security archive.
What happened to Yugoslavia? Why did the United States along with NATO bomb that country for 78 days straight drive dropping over 2,000 tons of bombs on schools, hospitals, water treatment plants, excetera? Gee, I wonder why socialism doesn't work?
What happened to socialism in Chile? What happened to libya? How many death squads have been trained in the United States for the purpose of murdering Communists and socialists in South america? Why did the United States Place such severe sanctions on Venezuela causing over 10,000 deaths!?
Do you have any idea how many democracies the United States has overthrown just since 1945?
https://youtu.be/1fpYY0-FMAE
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@olzt100 , "socialism has more or less lost its meaning. Socialism used to mean something. If you go back far enough, it meant basically control of production by producers, elimination of wage labor, democratization of all spheres of life; production, commerce, education, media, workers’ control in factories, community control of communities, and so on. That was socialism once." ~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/20161213-2/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke , it's amazing that you don't understand simple economics. If a company is privatized and you purchase it for the purpose of extracting profit, where do you think that wealth is going to come from? Out of thin air? 😃
right now at the public utility workers are making a certain amount of money and customers are charged a certain amount of money. Let's say Bill Gates by that utility and wants to get a billion dollars out of annually in profit. Where is that extra billion dollars going to come from?
You either have to lower production costs or you have to increase the cost of electricity. How do you lower production costs? You can pay workers less. Or you can get the same number of workers to produce more electricity at the same rate of pay.
For example, when internet provider was privatized, not only did the cost of the internet increase, one out of every five workers was fired. Four workers then had to do the work that was normally done by five people.
There was a retirement home that was privatized and one of the ways they increased profits for the owners was by reducing the amount of toothbrushes and toothpaste that the old people were receiving. They also reduce the quality of the food.
So yeah, when it comes to medical care, retirement homes, electricity, water treatment plants, those are things you do not want in the private sector. The more wealth capitalist owners extract from those utilities, the greater the cost to the consumer and workers.
There was also a water treatment plant that was privatized and they reduce costs by cutting safety regulations. For the first time in Canadian history we had citizens died from drinking contaminated tap water!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are you talkin about? Marxism is an analysis of capitalism. So what does exploitation have to do with Marxism?
Capitalism is based on exploitation. It's about owning for a living. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. That's why capitalists like to joke that you should make your money work hard for you and not work hard for your money. That's the main purpose of capitalism. Being a parasite. Living off of other people's labour.
Socialism is not susceptible to exploitation because the workers are doing their own work and there's no hierarchy where you have people at the top they have control over those underneath. It's a bottom-up, democratic, non-hierarchical system of organization. Top-down systems, such as capitalism, those are the systems that are prone to corruption because those are the top have power over those underneath.
For example, there's a worker-owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make 65 to $70,000 a year. That's because they own the product of their labour.
However, an assembly line worker at Amazon produces about $200,000 worth of wealth with their labour. Because they don't own the product of their labour, they make close to minimum wage.
Who do you think is going to create more demand in the economy? Someone was $70,000 worth of purchasing power of someone making minimum wage?
Capitalism is economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy. Again, economic democracies are not prone to corruption because the workers are doing their own work. They can't exploit themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Richard Wolff is not a capitalist. All the money from Book Sales is donated.
Also, writing a book and selling it into the market, that's not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and sell them in the market, that's not capitalism. People have been selling the product of their labour into markets for hundreds of thousands of years.
What's the difference between a socialist company and a capitalist company? The capitalist company is privately owned and wage labour is utilized for profit.
The Socialist company is collectively owned. They do not utilize wage labour for profit. There is no employer-employee dynamic. The workers do their own work. They own the product of their labour and they sell that product into the market. That's not capitalism!
Richard Wolff is not a capitalist.
What is a capitalist economy? A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP comes from privately-owned companies that utilize wage labour for profit.
What's a socialist economy? One where most of the GDP comes from socially owned companies and factories.
A socialist economy is democratic. A capitalist economy is a form of economic feudalism.
economic democracy n.
Economic democracy means that the participants in economic institutions (e.g. factories, stores and universities) decide on the policy of the institution.
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public.
"Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
~ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital."
1
-
And of course a book is a product. If you hire someone to do the editing, for example, that makes the book more readable. Increases its value. Therefore the editor is entitled to a certain amount of the wealth comes from Book Sales. If you hire an artist to do illustrations and pictures, that also increases the value of the book. The artist is entitled to a certain amount of the wealth generated from Book Sales.
None of that is capitalism. Those are examples of earnings! Capitalism is about profit. Profit is what you get when you don't work for a living. Earnings are what you get when you do work. Earnings are what you get when you mix your labour with capital to produce a usable product. Capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of living off of other people's labour! Profit is maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. That basically means that capitalism is a religion and not really an economic system. One of the central goals of economic sense to achieve equilibrium. How can you achieve equilibrium when workers don't get the full value of their labour? How can you achieve equilibrium when workers produce more goods and services than they can actually afford to buy? The goal of capitalism is actually in direct opposition to achieve equilibrium! The more successful a capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less person power workers have! Basically all the workers have to bake a loaf of bread so that they can afford a slice! If 70% of the wealth goes to the owners of capital, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 30% of the goods and services they put into circulation. That creates a situation where people have to constantly be borrowing more and more from the future. But there's a problem with that. Because we live on a finite Planet. There's only so much hard currency to cover all of that debt. So, the only way to keep capitalism viable, the only way to keep the system running is to somehow circumvent that natural ceiling limit. How do you do that on a finite planet? Fractional Reserve banking! Now you can borrow from the future in perpetuity.
Capitalism is the real life Monopoly game. Workers and citizens get paid just enough every time they pass go to keep the game from collapsing. Those who own the hotels and houses and utilities, they get to live for free. They get to live in extreme luxury without having to do any work. Just about everyone else has to work 40 hours a week just so they can afford access to the very goods and services that they're producing in the first place. They have to work 40 hours a week or more so they can afford to live in a little wooden box, have food and clothing. Yeah, a bigger scam than the Christian religion. 😃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Capitalist governments don't want socialism. That's why we've seen a massive amount of privatization over the last 50 years. The more money the billionaires make, the more money politicians get. The Billionaire's want to own the hospitals, the bridges, the roads, the labs were people get their blood tested, railroads, factories, schools, jails, Etc. That way when you get a blood test or buy toilet paper, you have to pay some capitalist and extortion fee. Rather than paying a worker who made your toilet paper, most of your money is going to some rich shareholder. You basically have to pay some rich person for the privilege of wiping your own rear end. It's called economic slavery
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henrychoy2764 , . What are you talking about? Yes, socialist companies are democratic. Democracy is the core of socialism. How can you not know this? The workers have sovereignty. Do you know what sovereignty means? It means no higher authority. The workers are the ones that get to decide on the policies of the institution.
It's Like the core of veganism is eating fruits and vegetables. How could you possibly say that veganism doesn't have anything to do with eating fruits and vegetables? 😀
so you don't even know what socialism is or how it works.
Socialism is economic democracy. What is economic democracy?
economic democracy n.
Economic democracy means that the participants in economic institutions (e.g. factories, stores and universities) decide on the policy of the institution.
Now what is socialism?
• "Socialism is an economic and political system. It is an economic theory of social organization. It states that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the workers. This means the money made belongs to the workers who make the products, instead of groups of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists." ~
Durlauf, Steven N.; E. Blume, Lawrence. "socialism". DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS. Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
• "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital."
Socialism is literally economic democracy. The workers and communities own their own means of production and the product of their labor. They get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, etc. Not someone else. The workers have sovereignty. One worker equals one vote. That's about as Democratic as you can get.
Capitalism is extremely undemocratic. The workers have to do what they're told. The number of shares a person can own depends on how much money they have. The more shares you can buy, the more votes you have. That's what's called a plutocracy. Instead of being democratic, one person one vote, you have one share equals one vote. And the number of shares any one person can hold depends on how much money they have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@feelthebern3783 , you're arguing with an anarcho-capitalist. For over 2 years he's been spamming Richard Wolf videos with the following prageru talking points:
▪ James Adams: labour absolutely does not add any value because value is subjective.
@ James: because value is subjective it doesn't add any value? Of course labour adds value. Does an assembled iPod not have more value than one that's not assembled?
James Adams: labour does not add value, because value does not come from labour but from people's subjective preferences.
@ James: okay, but that doesn't negate the fact that an assembled product has more value than one that's not.
James Adams:
You again display nothing but economic idiocy. Are assembled mud pies more valuable than unassembled ones?
@ James: mud pies!? did I say everything that's produced by labour has value? 😃
▪ James Adams:
"That is a lie! 40 million Americans do not require food stamps in order to get enough to eat. 40 million is the number of people in total who qualify and receive Food Stamps. I have repeatedly corrected you do on this."
▪ James Adams:
"Workers do not get anything more FOR THEIR LABOUR when they are the owners. That is a lie! They get more money FOR THEIR CAPITAL you absolute clown."
▪ James Adams:
"Democracy is cringe garbage."
▪ James Adams:
"Capitalism does not require a government moron. Quit projecting."
Government moron? 😀 maybe you should run for office?
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. If workers can obtain their own Capital, then they can get most of the wealth produced by their labour.
For example, there is a socially owned bread factory in the United States where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. Why is it impossible for an assembly line worker to make that much while working at a capitalist company? Because they do not own the product of their labour. And when you do not own the product of your labour, you are basically nothing more than human livestock. And that's what capitalism is. It's basically a human livestock management system.
So when you make bread as an employee at a capitalist company, it doesn't matter how fast you work, how hard you work, how many loaves of bread you produce. They all belong to someone else. So if you make a million dollars worth of bread, you've basically made someone else a million dollars.
Another example. There's a Cooperative in Spain where a hundred and twenty thousand workers own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. They are so Advanced that Intel, Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company hire them for research and development. that Cooperative produces over 25 billion dollars in sales annually. that money goes to the workers because they are the owners.
when a company such as Amazon or Walmart does 25 billion dollars in sales, most of that money goes to Ayatul shareholders, many of whom are not even in the same country.
one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. capitalism actually violates basic economic and market principles. For example, how can you maximize production on one end while simultaneously maximizing profits by suppressing wages? if wages are not commensurate with production output, how can the workers then afford the very goods and services they are producing in the first place? They can't. if you have to bake 10 loaves of bread just so that you can afford one loaf, where does the money come from to buy the other nine loaves?
you see, there is a limitation when it comes to how much profit you can extract from someone else's labour. how does capitalism deal with that contradiction? By constantly increasing the amount of available credit. jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a downward spiral. any reduction in purchasing power has to be offset with access to credit. But that only keeps the system going temporarily. because of the interest attached to debt, purchasing power will be eroded even further in the future. when the credit runs out, people can't consume at all and then individuals start to dump their stocks in the market. that's that's one reason why there's a major economic downturn every 4 to 7 years.
However, socially on workplaces don't have that problem because wages are commensurate with production output. all the money stays with the workers. if there are shareholders extracting 50% of the labour value, you basically have reduced the purchasing power of workers by 50%. And therefore, without access to Credit, rates of consumption would slow by 50%. if you buy 50% less beer, the beer maker in turn has to reduce his rate of consumption. Excetera, excetera, excetera.
that's why we still have a 40-hour work week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. Under capitalism all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. An employee is nothing more than human livestock. Just like when you take a dairy cow and you give it bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't end up with twice the amount of Milk. The Cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. You have a farmer with twice the amount of milk. That's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction in working hours. if you take 50% of the honey from a beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you taken. the thing is, capitalists are not depended upon honey bees like they are on Workers when it comes to buying goods and services.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dassnek4728 , what do those stats have to do with the fact that 44% of Americans make less than $18,000 a year? How does that make what I'm saying wrong? If the small 17% of Americans that are fortunate enough to be making 50,000 a year, if some of them are now making more than 50,000, how does that change what I said? You're not making any sense. And you think those few people that are now making more than 50,000 a year, you think that's going to make up for the 44% of Americans that are living in poverty and can't even afford a trip to the doctor?
and what do you mean I'm not taking into consideration experience. What does experience have to do with anything that I've said? I said that an employee working for a capitalist Enterprise does not get the full value of their labour. So obviously if you have Workers producing more things than they can afford to buy, that's not conducive to a free market. you can't have an economic system where workers are producing more and more with each passing year while making less and less. Real wages in the United States haven't even increase since 1970!
experience is completely irrelevant to what I said. It doesn't matter if you have experience or no experience when it comes to getting the full value of your labour. doesn't matter if you're making $18,000 a year, $50,000 a year or $200,000 a year depending on your experience. If you're only getting 50% of your labour value, that's still half of whatever you're making at whatever experience level! I have no idea what you're talking about. You're not making any sense at all. did you make a mistake and respond to the wrong comment? :-)
and again, the person did not make an ignorant statement. His statement is correct.
1
-
@dassnek4728 , ▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
■ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
■ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪︎ With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds.
~ https://www.mintpressnews.com/harvesting-blood-americas-poor-late-stage-capitalism/263175/
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
▪︎ Companies Spend $340 Million Annually To Stop Workers From Organizing.
Would you prefer that the wealth created by your labour goes into your pocket, or to be used to keep you suppressed and your wages low?
http://labor411.org/411-blog/companies-spend-340-million-annually-to-stop-workers-from-organizing/
▪80% of the population lives on less than $10 a day!
▪50% of the population lives on less than $2.50 a day!
▪The bottom third, more than a billion people, live on a 1.25 a day!
▪ one child dies every 15 seconds from starvation.
▪ 30,000 people die per day from starvation and malnutrition.
▪ 1.2 billion tons of food is thrown away annually in order to maintain prices.
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dassnek4728 , ▪︎ With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds.
~ https://www.mintpressnews.com/harvesting-blood-americas-poor-late-stage-capitalism/263175/
▪︎ Income inequality in America is the highest it’s been since Census Bureau started tracking it, data shows
In the midst of the nation’s longest economic expansion, the separation between rich and poor is at a five-decade high.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/26/income-inequality-america-highest-its-been-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/
▪︎ Homelessness in Los Angeles tops 59,000!
https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2019/12/06/homeless-in-los-angeles-tops-59000/
▪︎ People are dying in record numbers!
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-04-23/homeless-dying-in-record-numbers-on-the-streets-of-los-angeles
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~ cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
▪︎ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
▪︎ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪︎ Companies Spend $340 Million Annually To Stop Workers From Organizing.
http://labor411.org/411-blog/companies-spend-340-million-annually-to-stop-workers-from-organizing/
If those companies were socially owned, that 340 million that's used against the workers to stop unionization, that would be going into their pockets instead! And they would be spending that 340 million dollars into the economy! That means more people buying beer, pizza, getting haircuts, buy homes, buying cars, Etc. Right? That would cause an expansion in the economy, right? But if you reduce the purchasing power of workers by 340 million, that would cause a retraction in the economy, right? Now you add on top of that 340 million, you add all the money going to CEOs, all the money going to idle shareholders, all the money going to lobbyists, can you imagine if workers were getting 100% of the full value of their labour? Wow! You would have a really thriving economy then, wouldn't you? Yes? Do you not agree?
If you agree, then you agree with Richard wolves position. If you disagree, and actually have an argument, I would love to hear it! So please, explain your position to me. If you want, we can talk on Skype. I'm available right now. How about you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, Richard wolf has started several successful businesses. He knows exactly what he's talking about. Depending on what kind of business you have, would probably be much more prosperous in a socialist economy than one that's capitalist. If you have more workers getting the full value of their labor, if you have more things being produced at home, the workers are going to have greater purchasing power. That means people are going to be able to buy more of whatever product you're selling. But when capital is companies dominate the economy, you end up with most things being made in china, you end up with most of the wealth going to a small minority of rich people, etc. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profit is maximized by keeping wages as low as possible. So the more successful the capitalist company is at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have. Also consider the fact that Bill Gates is now the largest owner of Farmland in the united states. He even owns a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system. If you have to pay extra money to Bill Gates every time you buy toilet paper, Park your car, get a blood test, that's less money you have to spend in the economy. Billions of dollars that used to go to the workers is now going to someone like Bill gates. That's billions of dollars in reduced purchasing power. Is this good for your business?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MattILSN , act smart? What are you talkin about now? What does that even mean? I'm talking about Jordan Peterson in general. The guy is a known liar, a coward, and he's even a self-confessed Christian conservative! It wasn't too long ago that guy was actually talking about how people from ancient civilizations had the knowledge of DNA! He also lied about and misrepresented Bill c16 because of his conservative views regarding gay marriage. Have you read his book? :-) and what kind of person in their right mind would compare fascism to Marxism? And then, on top of that, when challenged on how he could make such a bold statement, he claims that no one would dare debate him on the topic! when a long list of people actually stood up to debate him on the subject, he raised his speaking fee so high that no University could afford to pay it. anyway, the list goes on and on. Oh, also, when he was challenged on his so call belief about ancient civilizations knowing about DNA, he then claimed that he never made such a statement. he's been caught lying so many times it's actually hard to keep track. that's not my opinion, that's a matter of public record.
So yeah, among the intellectual Community, here in Canada, Jordan Peterson is nothing but a joke.
so what is it with you claiming to know how intelligent I am and how I'm trying to act? are you some kind of mind reader? like seriously, why would you even take the time to make such a comment? you're not capable of researching Jordan Peterson for yourself? the guy is a fraud and a charlatan. I'm not just making this up, this is easily substantiate. So exactly what is your problem? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , all value is subjective? I thought you said you had a master's degree in accounting? Is that true? Yes or no. Please, stated again for the public record.
These are not the comments of intelligent, educated person:
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
, snake oil salesman? that doesn't make any sense. you think he has a patent on The Cooperative name? if you get together with your friends and family and start a business, how does that benefit Richard wolf? Your statement doesn't make any sense at all.
and yes, there is no shortage of statistics. There are hundreds of thousands of worker cooperatives in the United States and around the world. 60% of the American land mass is powered by worker cooperatives. In The Cooperative agricultural sector alone millions of people are employed, providing over 8 billion in paychecks.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@callummcmac4079 what the United States wants to do to Russia is a matter of public record. Individuals such as Zbigniew Brzezinsk are on record saying they want to make Russia bleed as much and for as long as possible.
▪ Zbigniew Brzezinsk, formal National Security advisor of the United States, 1996:
"Ukraine, an important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. If we can control Ukraine, then we can control Russia."
▪ "In the biggest power grab since George Bush seized Eastern Europe and converted it into a NATO bastion confronting Russia, the Obama regime, together with the EU, financed and organized a violent putsch in the Ukraine which established a puppet regime in Kiev."
~ James Petras, 2014 (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
▪ Noam Chomsky:
"In 2014, a Russia-supported government in Ukraine was forcefully removed from power by a coup supported by the U.S. and replaced by a U.S. and European-backed government. It was a development that brought closer to war the two main antagonists of the Cold War era, as Moscow regards both U.S. and European involvement in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued eastward expansion as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to encircle Russia.
The strategy of encirclement is indeed as old as NATO itself, and this is the reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin issued recently a list of demands to the U.S. and NATO with regard to their actions in Ukraine and even parts of the former Soviet space. In the meantime, senior-level Russian officials have gone even further by warning of military response if NATO continues to ignore Moscow’s security concerns. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a solvable problem, but one wonders if the U.S. will remain dedicated to a 'zombie policy' that could produce potentially awful consequences in the event of a diplomatic failure.
There’s more to add, of course. What happened in 2014, whatever one thinks of it, amounted to a coup with U.S. support that replaced the Russia-oriented government by a Western-oriented one. That led Russia to annex Crimea, mainly to protect its sole warm water port and naval base, and apparently with the agreement of a considerable majority of the Crimean population. There’s extensive scholarship on the complexities, particularly Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine and more recent work."
▪ Christopher Black, international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases:
"... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
▪ The United States formed NATO in 1949 with 11 countries in its own interest and with the aim of destroying the communist bloc. Today, NATO is engaged in creating terrorism in more than 30 countries around the world. The United States and NATO have opened shops around democracy and destroyed countless countries, large and small. They are not friends of anyone. They are bigots.
Why was NATO not dismissed in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded? The USSR, the CIA's deep conspiracy, was broken into pieces and then those pieces were gradually incorporated into NATO, lastly Ukraine. Attempts by NATO to destroy or pressure Russia, which is surrounded by NATO, are never acceptable. A war organization called NATO should be disbanded immediately. Then the world will return to balance. Get rid of NATO and save the world from nuclear annihilation.
▪ Russia did not start the war, it's putting an end to it. https://youtu.be/GZLLdZbzDTY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kurorahk ,
Scott Ritter on Russian Offensive
https://youtu.be/3GkmdCaBECs
Facts are facts: Till 1990: NATO had 16 members
1991: Collapse of the USSR
Russia: Don't expand further
America: Okay we will not expand (verbally,
not written)
1999: Poland, Hungary and Czech republic joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so Jack off!
2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2009: Albania and Croatia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2014: CIA funded Coup de ta to overthrow the legal government of Ukraine and install a Pro Western US puppet government
2017: Montenegro and North Macedonia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2021: US proposal for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and
Ukraine to join NATO
Russia: Enough is enough, you are betraying us ever since 1990s, if we allow you, you will deploy missiles on our borders.
Western World: Russia is so aggressive, they are evil, they don't think about humanity, Russia is expanding. Putin is being unreasonable......
Hypocrite Western world!!!!!
Imagine if Canada and Mexico joined a military alliance with Russia and deployed missiles on its borders?! The US will declare war for own security.
Where was the West and the so called free world’s morality for what the US did to
secular regimes in Iraq, Afganistan ,Libya?
They turned a blind eye and destroyed these Middle Eastern countries all while funding terrorism and supporting Wahabbi Extremist theocracies in Saudi Arabia and the gulf states which sponsor terrorists around the world.
This is not the 1980’s
People have eye and ears, the world has had enough of Western imperialism and Unipolar control over the rest of the world.
It’s about time the Western Hemisphere wakes up from its colonial wet dream of controlling the world and dictating who can and cannot be free.
Russia 🇷🇺 & China 🇨🇳 along with rest of the world should come together to form a balance of power to create a Multipolar World.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@watsongames5543 , maybe it'll be easier if I actually take the time to explain. There are three main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, progressive taxation, social programs Etc.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism is about workers owning and controlling their own businesses and factories. There are hundreds of thousands of these Democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. They provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers in communities compared to capitalist Enterprises.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
@nyChannel09 , dude, this is very simple to understand. If you start a company then it's yours. You can do what you want with it. If workers start a company then they can do what they want with it.
There's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world. There's a region in Spain where almost 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned companies.
There are even worker-owned companies in China! Huawei is one example.
"Huawei is a company wholly owned by its employees. No government or any third party holds shares in our company, intervenes in our operations, or influences our decision-making.
No one can own a share without working at Huawei, and as of 2018 there were 96,768 shareholding employees.
Huawei pays out US$9.65 billion in dividends to current and retired staff
Huawei overtook Ericsson in 2012 as the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world, and overtook Apple in 2018 as the second-largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world, behind Samsung Electronics. In 2018, Huawei reported annual revenue of US$108.5 billion. In July 2020, Huawei surpassed Samsung and Apple in the number of phones shipped worldwide."
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke , you're still not making an argument. 😀
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
~ United Nations
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people.
~ University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives.
▪ almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from worker and community-owned electrical cooperatives.
~ NRECA electric-cooperative-fact-sheet
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
1
-
1
-
@micahrodriguez4580 , we do know what the cause. When workers own and control their own labour and resources, wealth stays with them and the community. When you work for someone else, most of the wealth goes to your employer, and your employer has most of the control. That's why the workers in Flint Michigan were forced to pollute their water supply. That's why when the corporation decided to move production to China, the workers had no control over that decision.
Now you compare that to a socialist form of organization where the workers are in control. Consider 125000 workers in Spain that own their own bank, means of production, University, high-tech Research Laboratories. One worker equals one vote. They get paid the full value of their labour. and because they get paid the full value of their labour, they have more money to spend in to their community so that smaller businesses thrive.
there are bread factories in the United States where the lowest paid employee get over $65,000 a year. but that's because the workers own their own labour. Otherwise, those janitors and assembly line workers would be making minimum wage like they do at Amazon or Walmart. when you got billions of dollars going to CEOs and Idol shareholders instead of workers, you end up with a situation where you have more goods and services then people can afford. capitalism erodes the purchasing power of workers, that in turn causes a retraction in the economy.
we know what the cause of the problem is. We've known for a very long time. We've also known what we know what the cause of the problem is. we also know what the solution is. wealth should stay with the wealth producers. We need an economic system where workers can actually get paid the full value of their labour, something that is impossible under capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. Technically it's not even an economic system.
people such as Epstein are paid by the individuals behind the banking and industry. It's his job to confuse the issue. he does a very good job at that. it's like when the tobacco industry used to pay people in order to cause doubt in regards to the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer.
who do you think funded and organized the debate? it was the reason Foundation. who funds the reason Foundation? The same people that fund The Institute for privatization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Twosheets , freedom-loving capitalist? If you were truly interested in free markets and thriving economies, you would be anti-capitalist. Capitalism provides freedom for a very small minority and slavery for the vast majority. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. So how can you say you go by Logic and reason? We're talking basic math here. 80% of the world's population subsists on $10 a day or less. Most Americans can longer afford a family on a single income. If wages and reduction in working hours have kept up with increases in productivity made possible by labor-saving technology, everyone would be making at least $70,000 a year will only having to work 10 hours a week. Since 1950 productivity levels have more than tripled well the need for labour has been cut in half. Are we working half as many hours with twice the amount of income when adjusted for inflation? No. Of course not.
Freedom? Yeah, while over 98% of the people on earth have to slave away working 40 hours a week or longer, the two richest people now have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population in the 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
Capitalism is literally modern day slavery. Boss dictates what time you have to get up in the morning to go to work, what you have to wear at work, how hard you have to work, how long you have to work, when or if you get a coffee break, what time you get a lunch break, a lot of companies are now demanding you have to keep a smile on your face for morale, a lot of dictate when and how long you get to go to the washroom, they can cut your wages anytime they want, Etc. You think that's freedom?
But at a socialist company, the workers free! They are their own boss, so obviously they're going to have maximum freedom. They also get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces, and that means more prosperity. I just for themselves, but the entire Community because when workers have more money they can buy more stuff. That creates demand. The economy expands. A capitalist companies the owners do everything possible to get the workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. But that causes the economy to contract because you end up with more goods and services in circulation than workers can actually afford.
And of course when workers have equal voting power they have more equality. When you work at a capitals company, you have no voting power at all.
So when you say you choose Socialism or capitalism, because of Freedom, that simply doesn't make any sense. That's actually a contradiction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@digppa25 , I said that anytime you have a dollar going to someone who didn't work for it somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. Money doesn't just magically appear out of nowhere. It has to be covered by labour. Labour includes both mental and physical efforts.
Yes, the economy expands but under capitalism it expands at a much faster rate than wages. You see workers only get paid a fraction of the wealth that their labour produces. that's not very conducive to a free market for a thriving economy. for example, if workers only get 25% of the wealth from the products and services they produce, then they're only going to be able to afford 25% of the goods and services in circulation. But there's a problem. Jobs are tied to consumption. The consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume.
you see, you can over capitalized on honey bees because the worst thing that can happen is the bezel start. If you take 50% of the honey from the beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken. but if you extract 50% of the wealth from the workers, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of that which they produce. Pet causes a serious problem. That's why we have fractional Reserve Banking and credit cards.
but socialism doesn't have that problem because wages are commensurate with production output. for example, there's a socially own bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. that's because they own the product of their labour. but when you're an employee at a capitalist company, it doesn't matter whether you produce $70,000 with your labour or 70 million dollars with your labour. Most of that money goes to someone else. obviously someone with $70,000 worth of purchasing power is going to be able to buy more stuff in create more demand than someone with $20,000 worth of purchasing power.
we still have a 40-hour work week because capitalism keeps wages so low that people have to work that long or longer in order to be able to survive. Industry can't even run close to at 100% capacity. Even if people only work 10 hours a week we could probably produce far more than we're capable of consuming. But under capitalism all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. That's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction in working hours. that's why they're now talking about a universal basic income. It's kind of like increasing the amount of money you get when you're playing Monopoly in order to keep the game going. try playing Monopoly when people don't even receive $200. The game ends very quickly.
Capitalism is a religion. A pyramid scheme.
anyway regardless, Richard Wolff argument is correct. Worker-owned companies are better for workers and communities because they provide more equality, freedom and prosperity. obviously if you get to keep 100% of the wealth of your labour produces, you're going to have more prosperity. For you and the community because you're going to have greater purchasing power which creates more demand. And obviously you're going to have more freedom when you're Your Own Boss. Obviously there's going to be more equality when you have equal voting power. but when you work as an employee at a capitalist company, you're basically working at a dictatorship. The boss dictates, you follow orders or you get fired. And maybe if you're lucky production wanting to be moved to China.
1
-
@digppa25 capitalism is a religion. You cannot have an economic system where production output increases at a much faster rate than income. One of the central goals of Economics to achieve equilibrium. The fact of the matter is that under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. That's why we're in such a mess and why working hours having decreased with increased production made possible by labor-saving technology. This system is not sustainable or viable. People should only be entitled to the wealth that they generate with their own labour. It's not possible for a person to actually earn a billion dollars. When you have someone taking more then what they contribute, it has to come at the expense of someone else.
Worker cooperatives are often more durable and efficient compared to capitalist Enterprises.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
1
-
@digppa25 , no, the goal is not to make private ownership be legal. In fact, worker cooperatives are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. When you have more of the wealth staying at the foundation, then members of the community can afford more stuff. That makes it easier for people to open up their own coffee shop, pizza shop, Bowling Alley, whatever.
the goal is to make it easier for workers to obtain the capital they need in order to start their own cooperatives. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from cooperative.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with communities and workers. The problem with capitalism is that most of the wealth goes to the owners of capital. And you should know that trickle down economics doesn't work. The Apex very quickly becomes bloated and the foundation gets sucked dry. Consumption starts to slow, people get laid off and can't consume, the economy becomes very sluggish and needs credit to be pumped into the system.
you see, capitalism requires workers to be in in a state of dependency. that's why it didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. people had to be forced into an extreme state of dependency before they would accept the wage slavery. capitalism is a modern form of slavery. if you could get the full value of your labour, say $70,000 a year working as an assembly line worker at a bread factory, would you work for Walmart or Amazon for minimum wage? No. Of course not. The only reason people work at companies like that for such a low wages because they don't have any other option. those companies are dependant upon poor desperate workers.
1
-
1
-
@digppa25 , there are some regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. so what you do is eliminate barriers and make it easier for people to obtain the capital they need in order to start their own cooperatives.
Yes, wage slavery is a legitimate form of slavery. Yes, it differs from chattel slavery in that you can choose who your exploiter is and you get monetary compensation, but it's still a form of slavery. That is not my opinion. That is a matter of fact. the enclosure movement force people into a state of dependency intentionally. Now most of the people on earth have no choice but to sell their labour in order to survive. They have to waste years of their life making money for other people while having to follow orders. capitalist Enterprise is basically a dictatorship. The boss tells you when you work, when you don't work, how much you get paid, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. That is a dictatorship. The boss dictates and you do what you're told. Because the richest majority owned most of the capital, the workers have no choice but to compete with one another for jobs. If you don't follow orders, you get replaced.
here's a good documentary on labour history
"The War At Home | Metanoia Films" http://metanoia-films.org/the-war-at-home/
and no, capitalism does not promote or provide freedom for most of the population on the planet. the vast majority of Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income and live from check to check. capitalism suppresses both positive and negative freedom. https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
some labour history:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
What is the difference between a wage slave and a chattel slave?
The chattel slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
"The chattel slave is the property of one master, and is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire capitalist class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The chattel slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries."
"As long as he owns your tools (the capitalist) he owns your job, and if he owns your job he is the master of your fate. You are in no sense a free man. You are subject to his interest and to his will. He decides whether you shall work or not. Therefore, he decides whether you shall live or die. And in that humiliating position any one who tries to persuade you that you are a free man is guilty of insulting your intelligence."
when you work as an employee, the boss tells you when you work, how hard you have to work, Etc. they can cut your wages, your working hours, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
page 410
1
-
1
-
1
-
@digppa25 , what question have an I answered? If you do not realize that capitalism is an exploitative system. If you don't realize that it's immoral to have a system where you can own for a living instead of actually having to work for the things you have, then yes, you have been brainwashed. Yes, the left produced propaganda, but propaganda is it necessarily wrong or inaccurate. the billionaires can afford to employ millions of people to disseminate their propaganda and conduct research. If someone like Noam Chomsky ever made a mistake in his analysis, those who get paid to do damage control would be all over him in seconds. He would be announcing his mistake on every News Channel probably for years to come. People on the left have to be extremely careful not to make a mistake.
And I'm glad that you're satisfied with your job and are doing well. But just because you are doing well, that doesn't mean that the vast majority of people aren't suffering under the system. 80% of the population subsist on less than $10 a day most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. You've got thousands of people going bankrupt every day because of an unexpected medical bill. Here we have a system where people can own for a living without having to do any work. Must be nice to be able to accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour while playing golf, sleeping, using the washroom, having a shower, Etc. where do you think that money comes from? all of that money has to come from labour. every time you buy a toothbrush, every time you buy toilet paper, every time you borrow money for student loan, house, Etc. every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who didn't work for it, you are literally stealing hours off of other people's lives.
For example, there is a person who won the lottery last year where i live. he won 60 million dollars. That money is currently sitting in a bank account. He is getting 3% interest on that 60 million.
That comes to 1.8 million dollars a year.
That's $150,000 per month.
That's $35,000 per week.
that's $5,000 a day.
That's $200 an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year, for the rest of their life, until the day they die. and they will pass that privilege onto every child they have and every woman that they marry.
now let's look at Jeff Bezos. He has about 200 billion dollars now. So, hypothetically speaking, if he were to dump all of his Capital assets and just put that money into the bank account at 3% interest, he would be accumulating 6 billion dollars per year for doing absolutely nothing.
That's 500 million dollars a month.
That's a 115 million dollars per week.
That's 16 and 1/2 million dollars per day.
that's 685,000 per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
How long does it take you to use the washroom? Let's say it takes you 1 minute to take a dump. by the time Jeff Bezos takes a dump, he has an extra $12,000 in his bank account. 😃
where do you think that money comes from? Every dollar of that has to come from labour. Every time you take out a student loan, every time you buy toilet paper, a toothbrush, finance a house, a car, Etc. you have to pay some rich individual for that privilege. He gets to collect that amount of money without doing any work at all. And, unless he's actually capable of spending $600,000 an hour, with every passing hour, he'll be making more money than he did before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aew0aew0 , you don't think I made a case against capitalism? Seriously? Every person on Earth could have a very high standard of living if it wasn't for capitalism. Thanks to capitalism we have one child dying every 15 seconds from starvation even though we throw away 1.2 billion tons of food annually in order to artificially maintained prices in the capitalist Market.
Capitalism requires scarcity because without it prices would drop too far and profits would be minimized. The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit, not eliminate scarcity or help people.
The two richest people I have more wealth than the poorest half of the American population. The eight richest people now have more wealth than the poorest half of the Earth's population. Capitalism transfers massive amounts of wealth from the working-class to those who don't work. It's absolutely obscene.
And because we can now produce far more than we're capable of consuming, we have to have this throw-away culture in order to keep people needlessly employed 40 hours a week. But we don't need to work 40 hours a week in order to supply everyone with goods and services. That's what makes capitalism the most wasteful and destructive system ever devised. Capitalism is a religion. Technically, it is an anti economic system. It defies both reason and logic.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
John McMurtry
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
@aew0aew0 , don't worry, you can't offend me. 🙂 anyway, the point is since we can produce far more than we're capable of consuming, we could have a high standard of living for everyone on the planet. Not only that, we could probably reduce working hours to 20 a week.
The problem is, under capitalism, the vast majority of people are not free. They are wage slaves. They do not own the product of their labour. So anytime we see increases in productivity made possible by technology, all of that extra wealth end up going into the pockets of the owners of capital. That's why we never see working hours decrease. Workers have to fight to achieve such things. But if workers were free in the first place, then they wouldn't have to fight for a reduction in working hours. A reduction in working hours would occur naturally as labor-saving technology expands.
For example, there is a socially owned bread factory in the United States. The assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. Why can't an assembly line worker make that much money as an employee at a capitalist company? because they don't own the product of their labour. Therefore it doesn't matter how fast you work, it doesn't matter how hard you work, it doesn't matter how many loaves of bread you produce. if you produce a million dollars worth of bread, you have basically produced a million dollars for someone else.
However, at the socially owned Factory, when the workers produce a million dollars worth of bread, that money stays with the workers because they own that bread.
you see, when you do not own the product of your labour, you're basically nothing more than human livestock. just like when you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, the cow doesn't get to work as many hours. The cow does not get twice the amount of milk. All of that milk goes to the farmer. capitalism is about capitalizing on the Labour of animals and human beings. human livestock produces a much greater return than animal livestock. if you take 50% of the honey from a beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken. if the bees do not own their own hive, then it doesn't matter how hard they work. It doesn't matter how fast they work. All of the extra money will go to the owners of The Beehive. The capitalist. that's why we still have a 40-hour work week today even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. if the fees on their own beehive and they got labor-saving technology which doubled their production, then technically they would be able to work half as many hours.
likewise, at a socialist company when 500 workers are replaced with automation, you now have 500 workers to share in the remaining workload. at a capitalist company those 500 people would end up on the unemployment line where they would have to compete with the other unemployed people. That competition drives the value of Labor down.
what is the consequence? the consequences now you have people working longer and harder than ever before; production output is maximized, but on the other end, purchasing power is reduced. that causes a massive disparity between supply and demand. any erosion in purchasing power has to be offset with access to credit. otherwise, consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a domino effect. A downward spiral. That's why we have so much debt. That's why interest rates are Solo and why they're now entertaining the possibility of introducing negative interest rates.
Anyway, this is the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is referring to. It's the kind where workers directly own their own means of production or business. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ. basically, the bees own their own beehive. And that is more conducive to a free market in thriving economy. It's also more natural. symbiotic rather than parasitic.
1
-
1
-
@aew0aew0 , what do you mean you think blaming capitalism is silly? How can you possibly say that? Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by Labour. That is a fact. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth that grows in relation to everyone else. Obviously having an economic system where most of the wealth actually goes to owners rather than workers is going to have serious problems. Obviously you should get most of the wealth produced by your labour. You don't agree? You should be able to own the product of your labour. You don't agree?
Of course capitalism is the problem. When is socially owned company produces 25 billion dollars in sales, that money goes to the workers. They spend that money into the economy, that makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses because people are buying more pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
What is most of that 25 billion ends up going to idle shareholders, many of whom are not even in the same country, then we have a serious problem. Workers don't have adequate purchasing power to consume the goods and services in circulation. We're not talking about opinion here, we're talking about basic mathematics. So yeah, obviously capitalism is the problem. Not my opinion, mathematical fact.
1
-
@aew0aew0 , well no, you can't argue against facts. You can argue against opinions and assertions, that's fine. But we know where the money is going. that's very easy to substantiate. there's no opinion about it. 🙂
Compensation https://www.facebook.com/100000498825296/posts/3810397245653532/
The percentage of GDP going to workers has decreased since 1950.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10163720662450618&id=544325617
So now we have a situation where 90% of the population gets the least amount of money well less than 1% ends up getting most of the money, even though they don't physically work or produce anything. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10163646961865618&id=544325617
yes, you may disagree when it comes to the idea that you should get most of the money produced by your labour. if you think most of the wealth that your labour produces to belong to someone else, that's up to you. What you think the product of your labour should belong to someone else, that's also up to you. I think it's a little nutty, but each to their own. 🙂 I think people should have to work for a living. You think they should be able to live off of Capital. But the problem with that is every time you have a dollar going to a non producer, somewhere else you have someone who worked for dollar that they don't get. And that's really parasitic. obviously if you take 90% of the economic pie and give it to those who don't work, you're going to end up with a lot of poverty. That's just the reality of the situation. Maybe you don't care. That is your choice and I respect that. 🙂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDS-33 , of course some people work harder then others. Some people want to work more, some people want to work less. Yes, some people are more talented, more skilled, more intuitive, Etc. And yes, some people are greedy While others are not. Those things make economic democracy more desirable, not less.
what do you mean economic democracy is a dream? What do you base that assumption on? you think we can achieve democracy on a social level but not on a economic level? that's what they said about feudalism. They said social democracy would be impossible. Well, We now know that simply isn't true.
Economic democracy doesn't go against human nature. Just the opposite. Why do you think Homo sapiens were able to survive but the Neanderthals couldn't? Human beings are collectivist by Nature. there are hundreds of thousands of socially owned workplaces and factories in the United States and around the world. We know exactly how well they compare to capitalist Enterprises. Statistically speaking, those companies are more efficient, more resilient, more Innovative, Etc. And statistically speaking, workers are happier, more creative, more efficient, they take less sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, depression, suicide, Etc.
worker-owned companies are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy because wealth and control stays with the workers and communities. When you increase purchasing power of workers, the economy expands. People are able to buy more stuff. However, capitalism erodes purchasing power. It destroys markets and economies.
for example, in the United States there is a socially own bread factory where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. that's because they own the product of their labour. but if you are an employee at a capitalist company, it doesn't matter if you make $70,000 worth of product. It doesn't matter if you make a million dollars worth of product. Most of that money will go to someone else. and that is not conducive to a free market and thriving economy.
there's a Cooperative in Spain where a hundred and twenty thousand workers own their own bank, Hospital, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. their research and development department is so Advanced that they have contracts with Intel, Ford Motor Company, And Microsoft, just to name a few.
there's an absolutely massive electronics company in China That's owned by the workers.
in the United States almost 60% of the country gets its electricity from democratic workplaces.
there are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from democratic workplaces.
so of course we can have economic democracy.
you want me to name you one socialist country that has improve the lives of its citizens? you do realize that the type of socialism being discussed doesn't have anything to do with the government.? I already pointed that out in my first comment. but if you want to talk about State capitalism/socialism, then yes, there are many examples of how life was greatly improved.
when the workers took over in Russia back in 1917, there was close to a 99% illiteracy rate. there was no modern technology. There was no electricity, indoor plumbing, all they had was the very simplest and primitive Farming tools. they were able to accomplish in 50 years what took the United States 300 years to accomplish. And the United States did it with slavery, imperialism and massive worker exploitation. 9 year old children working 18-hour days, Etc. and even though Russia was under constant attack from the time that the workers took over, they were still able to go from A Primitive Society to one where they could put men into space, probes on other planets, they even came up with the first portable phone. technological innovation in Russia far outpaced that of capitalist countries such as Britain and the United States. and the quality of life for its citizens were massively improved. they were able to achieve all of that even though the first thing the United States did was to send troops into Russia when the workers freed themselves from those are in 1917. other countries also sent troops into Russia. Canada, Britain, even Japan! the Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922!
China is another example. consider the success of the Great Leap Forward
https://leohezhao.medium.com/reassessing-the-great-leap-forward-4f21238ee6d
but it's a moot point anyway because the type of socialism being discussed isn't State socialism. there's a big difference between State ownership and worker ownership. you have Community ownership: communism. you have worker ownership: socialism. and you have state ownership: State socialism / capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And you can't blame the government or the banking system because under capitalism when you control most of the capital, you also control the economy, the economic system and government by default. The government represents the owning class. It does not represent the workers. All the workers can do is fight for Privileges and protections under the law. That's it.
The reason the capitalist class implemented fractional Reserve banking is because there's a natural limit to how much wealth you can extract from labour. You see, the function of an employee is basically the same function as cattle or honey bees. Or any other form of livestock. So when it comes to cows, the farmers give them bovine growth hormone in order to get more milk. The milk all belongs to the farmer. If a cow can produce twice the amount of milk because of the hormones and Technology, it doesn't get to work half as many hours. It doesn't end up with twice the amount of milk. The same thing with employees. That's why labor-saving technology just makes billionaires richer. That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the do you dare class rather than reducing working hours. Since 1950 labor-saving technology has more than tripled productivity with the same amount of Labor. But workers are dependant upon a 40-hour work week in order to survive because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. Anyway, the capitalist class had to implement fractional Reserve banking in order to circumvent the natural limitation of extracting wealth from labour. The more wealth you extract from labour, the less stuff people can buy. You see, jobs are tied to consumption. When it comes to honey bees, they started replacing valuable honey with high fructose corn syrup. If the farmer takes too much honey, the be starved to death. When it comes to workers, you either have to pay them more or you have to increase their access to credit.
Anyway, under capitalism the banks are owned by the richest members of society. The goal of capitalism is to on as much Capital as possible. The rich people on the parking Lots at hospitals, Labs were people get their blood tested, electric companies, they want to privatize the Healthcare System in countries such as Canada so that they can own that too. Even when it comes to wiping your ass with toilet paper, you have to basically pay extra money to some rich owner for the privilege. Capitalism is the real-life Monopoly board game. That's why capitalist like to joke that if you can't figure out a way to make money while you're sleeping, then you're actually going to have to get a job.
All capitalism is crony.
1
-
@tovarisch3039 , your comment doesn't make any sense. For one, what makes you think I have anything to put in order? 2, what does that have to do with socialism? I could just imagine those people back in the days of feudalism who wanted to transition to capitalism being told by the feudal Lords that they should put their house in order before talking about capitalism.
3. "There are people making it under this system." Yeah, so? There are people that made it in the Antebellum South. There are people that made it Nazi Germany. There are people that made it back of the days of feudalism. Your comment doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is an immoral system. The system is based on explotation. It's a system where people can amass billions of dollars by exploiting other people's labour. There are a lot of people that are doing very very well under the system that want to get rid of it. For example, look at Richard Wolff. Or how about Noam Chomsky? Hell, there are billionaires out there that want to transition from capitalism to an economic democracy. Because those people are moral. That's because they know that capitalism is immoral and unsustainable.
Anyway, I find your comment to be very odd. It doesn't make any sense at all.
I didn't say that socialism didn't work because I'm not in charge. Socialism does work. The Socialist mode of production is better for workers and communities. Also, in regards to State socialism, that even works better. Consider how well the socialist countries handled the pandemic compared to capitalist countries. You talk about billionaires being self-made men. No, that's true for the vast majority of those individuals. Even Bill Gates had special privileges due to his family background. Jeff Bezos had family members that kept pumping money into his business that would have gone bankrupt otherwise. No one earns a billion dollars. Even if a person could generate $100,000 a year and save every penny of it, it would take no less than ten thousand years to accumulate a billion dollars. You need to understand that anytime someone takes more than they contribute, it has to come at someone else's expense. That's just the mathematics of the situation. Anytime you wind up with a dollar in your pocket that you didn't work for, somewhere else who have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. Wealth does not just magically appear out of nowhere. It requires labour to convert Capital into wealth. That's just an unavoidable fact. Socialism is about people actually working for the things they have. Capitalism is about being able to own for a living. Do you have any idea how disgusting that is? Why would anyone support such a parasitical system? Doesn't make any sense.
1
-
@Tovarisch , what are you talkin about? Capitalism doesn't raise people out of poverty. It causes poverty. The only reason we have a middle class today is because the fight against capitalism. How can you not know this? The capitalist did everything they could to prevent people from achieving the eight-hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, holidays, the right to unionize, Etc. It wasn't for the fight against capitalism, Not only we we still have nine year old children working 18 hours a day, the working class would still have a 45 year life span. Capitalism is a religion.
And what do socialist countries have to do with the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about? Haven't I already explained that Richard Wolff is not talking about State socialism? But in regards to State socialism, the socialist countries we're able to deal with the covid pandemic more effectively. China was able to eliminate covid-19 almost a year ago! It's the capitalist countries that did the worst. I hope you're not actually comparing First World countries to third world countries and those countries that are actually under us sanctions. For example, us sanctions in Venezuela have caused the death of at least a hundred thousand people. If it wasn't for China violating the US embargo, supplying Venezuelans with the medication they need it, the virus probably would have destroyed what's left of the country.
I'm not trying to convert you. You can believe whatever you want to believe. You should know that merely selling the product of one's labour is not capitalism. Capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. Basically, it's the economic system of parasites.
Again, I'm not trying to convert you. I'm suggesting you take the time to properly inform yourself. Who knows, maybe you're not a moral person. There's a lot of people that supported slavery. Maybe you believe in wage slavery. Maybe that's the type of person you are. But at the very least you should conduct proper research be able to differentiate between facts, assertions and opinions. Look at the assumptions you made regarding Richard Wolff. You don't think he doesn't know about fractional Reserve banking? You don't think he's well aware of the corruption that takes place under capitalism? Yeah, he understands those things like the back of his hand. Obviously, the man writes textbooks on the subject! It's like someone who has been teaching and Performing brain surgery over half a century and you don't think he understands the difference between a dendrite and an axon. 😀 you're always going to have corruption under capitalism because it is an extremely undemocratic system of organization. The richest members of society control most of the capital on the planet. That means by default they control the government, production, the economy, the monetary system, Etc. There are billionaires out there accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars per second without doing any work at all, it just comes from their Capital Holdings. Where do you think that wealth comes from? When you have hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth going to people who don't actually work, that means you're reducing the purchasing power of workers by that same amount. But there's a problem. Jobs are tied to consumption. Consumption requires money. That's why we have fractional Reserve banking. Capitalism made fractional Reserve banking necessary.
Here, if you want to better understand the connection between fractional Reserve banking and capitalism, I would recommend watching these videos that are from an actual University course on history.
"The close ties between science and imperialism were in fact just one part of a more complex relationship. The third crucial member of this relationship was capitalism, which financed both science and empire, and which led to an unprecedented growth in the world economy. How does a capitalist economy function? How is it different from traditional economies? Is capitalism natural, or is it really a kind of religion?"
Part 1 https://youtu.be/YakALas74V4?list=PLfc2WtGuVPdmhYaQjd449k-YeY71fiaFp
Part 2 https://youtu.be/7SqSWswvxv8?list=PLfc2WtGuVPdmhYaQjd449k-YeY71fiaFp
Part 3 https://youtu.be/rwkkzZZm0tA?list=PLfc2WtGuVPdmhYaQjd449k-YeY71fiaFp
Part 4 https://youtu.be/BR5F-HrCzrM?list=PLfc2WtGuVPdmhYaQjd449k-YeY71fiaFp
I would also recommend checking out these textbooks on the history and evolution of capitalism.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital00mich
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles https://tinyurl.com/y6xqz7cw
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge. . ISBN 978-0415241878.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tovarisch3039 , and why are you using country such as Cuba as an example of failed socialism? That doesn't make any sense. Not only does the United States refused to do business with Cuba, they make it almost impossible for anyone else to do business with him. Any cargo ship that docks at Cuba can no longer travel to the United States.. you have any idea how many democracies the United States has overthrown just since 1945 in order to prevent countries for moving away from capitalism? My God. What was the first thing the United States did when the workers overthrew the Czar in Russia? Immediately the United States got together with France, Japan, Britton, and sent troops into Russia imagine of Russia troops onto American soil? Back in 1917 those poor Russian Farmers couldn't even read and write. They had no electricity, they didn't have running water, there's no such thing as indoor plumbing, Etc. They were completely and utterly illiterate. All of them. All they had was the most primitive handheld Farming tools. That's it. And four countries sent troops in to crush them. The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922. Do you have any idea how many times do United States and Britain has repeated that process in other countries in order to prevent socialism? Dude, United States actually trained death squads murder socialist women and children in South America. That's not my opinion, that's a matter of public record.
just since 1945 the USA has:
• tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected;
• attempted to assassinate over 40 foreign leaders.
• grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries;
• bombed the civilian populations of over 30 countries;
• used chemical & biological weapons; https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/
USA #1 For STD's
S: subversion, sabotage,
T: terrorism, torture,
D: drug trafficking, death squads.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/
• Global capitalism - Rich Nations & poor Nations https://youtu.be/Q6WdUkaFyGw
• Humanity can be divided into 3 groups https://youtu.be/GEzOgpMWnVs
• School of the Americas death squads
pt 1 https://youtu.be/HOeaG6-qsVc
Pt 2 https://youtu.be/VW0k3v1RivA
• friendly dictators http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com/?m=1
• Samir Amin
https://youtu.be/CuYR-_tfWFw
Yeah, gee I wonder why socialism doesn't work? For a system that doesn't work the United States certainly goes to a lot of trouble to prevent it from occurring in other countries.
Hell, not only does the United States overthrow other countries in order to prevent worker movements, they also murder their own workers. Back in the days of Rockefeller, JPMorgan, Carnegie, excetera, look at how many workers were murdered when they tried get the right to unionize. Workers, women, children, these people we're murdered and tortured in order to prevent the 10 hour work day and five-day work week. When workers fought for the eight-hour day, the ruling class that they had lost their minds! They vowed workers would never ever achieve the 8-hour workday. I would recommend reading a people's History of the United States. The labour history in the United States is extremely bloody. Capitalists also did everything in their power to prevent child labour laws. There's a reason why the United States has the only first world country to refuse to sign an abolition against utilizing child labour in other countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , The Institute for Humane studies is a major propaganda organization. You see, this is why you have the views that you do. Everything you say about capitalism is the exact same things that they say. It's no secret that these people want to own the world. They want to own and control all the capital so that they can make billions of dollars without having to do any work at all. They want to own the railroads, the electric companies, Etc. Who do you think invented the American libertarian term? They openly confessed that they stole it from anarchist. Anarchists are against hierarchy. That's literally what anarchism needs. An means not / without. archy means rule. So when you put those two words together you have without rulers. They are staunchly against all forms of hierarchy, especially the non-democratic unaccountable forms such as capitalism. so yes, the word is contradictory because you cannot have a non-hierarchical form of capitalism. It's not possible. It'll be like having a Libertarian monarchy.
anyway, when it comes to these propaganda organizations, you really need to follow the money. and consider what they privatized so far. Billions of dollars that used to go to workers is now going to these people because they owned the railroads electric companies Etc.
The IHS has received millions of dollars in funding from the Koch family foundations and from the Koch-linked DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.
Charles G. Koch Foundation: $14,963,318 (1999-2012)
David H. Koch Foundation: $2,100,000 (1995-2001)
Claude R. Lambe Foundation: $2,537,074 (1986-1996)
DonorsTrust: $796,250 (2002-2012)
Donors Capital Fund: $3,123,636 (2003-2012)[11]
IHS staffers have participated in Koch network summit meetings, including Chad Thevenot and Marty Zupan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BabyYoda5555 , changed my mind about what? There's nothing you said that requires a change of mind. Yes, under capitalism you are free to choose your employer. What does that have to do with the argument? Nothing. And of course the capitalist class is going to use the government in order to facilitate their acquisition of capital and mitigate the risks.
And when you say that I can't change your mind? What does that mean? I never gave you any opinions so far. All I mentioned were basic facts. Your mind can't be changed by facts?
Competition tends towards monopoly. Owners accrue capital at the top but extract it from labour at the bottom. Large enterprises enter, disrupt, and even decimate communities, often leaving workers holding the bag, worse off than they were before.
competition -> winners -> competition between winners -> stronger winners -> .. -> big corporations -> state is corrupted by economic power -> corporations develop propaganda that will appeal to the frustrated, disinfranchiseed poor through think-tanks
Under capitalism economic power is political power. There's a direct correlation between funding and electability. Under the capitalist system there's always a plutocracy.
The richest members of society own most of the capital. That's why they get most of the wealth produced by labour and why they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. That's why the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people have basically the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
That is economic feudalism: plutocracy.
• anarchy - rule by no one
• autocracy - rule by one
• oligarchy - rule by minority
• republic - rule by law. (U.S.A - Plutocracy protected by law from the majority 'democracy')
• democracy - rule by majority
• socialism - rule by all
• Theocracy - ruled by or subject to religious authority. .
• Plutocracy (capitalism) - Government by the wealthy. (U.S.A republic).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You don't need people to enforce socialism. Richard Wolff is not advocating for government socialism. He's advocating for traditional socialism, which is direct worker ownership. It's because people have flaws that hierarchical systems of organization or not recommended. Capitalism is the ultimate hierarchical, undemocratic system. The richest members of society own most of the world's resources. As a consequence, they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low.
A lot of people supported slavery because there is a massive amount of wealth that could be generated from cheap labour. Capitalism, which is a modern form of slavery, produces even more wealth for people such as Jeff Bezos because most wage slaves are actually cheaper than chattel slaves. There's a reason why back in the days of the Antebellum wage slaves were used for dangerous jobs instead of chattel slaves. Chattel slaves were expensive! They were a big investment. And it was also very expensive to educate them, house them, feed them, provide them with Medical Care, Etc. Wage slaves on the other hand, they have to pay for their own education, their own training, their own medical, their own housing, Etc. And because they have to compete with other wage slaves for jobs, much more disciplined, productive and hell of a lot cheaper.
1
-
@danbennett1643 , there is no fuss. Merely stating the facts.
When most of the GDP is coming from privately-owned companies, we have a capitalist economy. When most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies, we have a socialist economy.
A socialist economy is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. Worker-owned companies are better for workers and communities. When the means of production are in the hands of the billionaire class, they get most of the wealth from labour and they get most of the power. That's why workers want to control those things. Then they get most of the wealth and get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. And obviously they should get most of the wealth produced by their labour, not someone else.
Worker-owned companies are tied to the community. When the wealth goes to the workers instead of Rich shareholders, people have more purchasing power. That causes the economy to expand because people can buy more stuff. Capitalism erodes purchasing power because the capitalist class does everything they can to maximize their profits. That means keeping wages as low as possible while maximizing production output. But if 75% of the wealth ends up going to the owners of capital, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of the goods and services they produce.
The problem is, jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. The next stage of human evolution will be to transition to an economic democracy.
There's no shortage of data that shows that worker-owned companies and factories are better for workers and communities:
▪ Study number 1:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 2:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 3:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 4:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 5:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
Here's an example of two very popular cooperative.
▪ Cianbro
Founded in 1949 by the Cianchette Brothers, Cianbro is one of the United States’ largest, most diverse, successful, open shop, 100% employee-owned construction and construction services companies.
.cianbro.com/Who-We-Are
▪ Huawei,
A giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jgalt308 , you're not making any sense. There are thousands of worker cooperatives around the world. I've already shown you the data.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jgalt308 , so you have no idea what I'm talking about. The point is the honey belongs to the bees. They produced a honey and normally they would get all of the wealth that they produce. I just like workers, they get capitalized on by exploiters. Capitalist exploit cows, honey bees and human beings. The point is that the Surplus value of Labor is being extracted from an employee. Again, if you make a chair and you sell it for $100, you have $100. If you can't afford your own tools and you make that cheer for someone else and they sell the product of your labour, you do all the work, putting in the same amount of time, but you only get a fraction of the money that your labour produced. That's why capitalist want to own slaves, honey bees, cows, Etc. So that they can extract a profit. As an employee, you cannot get the full value of your labour. What is the consequence? You have a situation where production output increases at a faster rate than wages. Therefore it is impossible for employees to be able to afford the goods and services they are producing in the first place. You see, you can exploit a cow because you're not dependant upon the cow to buy the goods and services that are being produced. But when it comes to human beings, the capitalist is both depended upon the Labour of the worker and the purchasing power of the worker. But in order to maximize profits the employers do everything they can to minimize the wages of employees.
Just like with the cow, all increases in productivity go to the owners. That's why I went productivity doubled between 1950 and 1990, there was no reduction in working hours and wages remained stagnant. instead of a reduction in working hours and increased Prosperity among the workers, we instead seen the Advent of the billionaire class because all increases go to the owners. now we have a situation where 44% of the American population earns $18,000 a year or less. they quite literally cannot afford the very goods and services they are producing in the first place. if wealth actually stayed with the workers, we would have had a gradual decrease in the number of working hours as productivity increased thanks to labor-saving technology.
Anyway, capitalism reduces workers to human livestock. Capitalism is based on exploitation and it's immoral. as well as extremely undemocratic. At worker cooperatives workers are doing their own work. They're not paying other people to do the work for them and then keeping most of the wealth that their labour produces. people should only be entitled to what they actually work for. living off of the Labour of other human beings is repugnant. That's why they call it wage slavery.
I don't mean to be rude, but I would recommend that you take a basic course in economics. I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. Once again, if we increase the number of cooperatives, we can make communities and workers less dependant upon billionaires and governments when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. That's a fact. Trickle up instead of trickle down.
1
-
@jgalt308 , what does taxation, keynesianism and FDR have to do with socialism? What does any of that have to do with worker cooperatives or worker self-management? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Anyway, I'll reiterate: the problem is that workers do not get paid the full value of their labour when they work as an employee at a capless company. It's not possible. Just like a cow, as much wealth is extracted from their labour as possible. If you were to give 100% of the milk back to the cow, then there would be no point in owning a cow. Same thing goes with the Beehive, slaves, Etc. Is the cost of owning a slave is equal to or more than the profit the slave produces, there be no point in owning a Slave.Capitalism is just another form of slavery. Back in the early 1900s wage slavery was considered to be almost as bad, sometimes worse, than chattel slavery.
Anyway, because workers do I get paid the full value of the labour they are not capable of actually purchasing all the things that they produce. However, capitalism is a consumer base system and therefore jobs are tied to consumption. Do you understand? So we can't have consumption slowing down. However to increase profits we have to increase production at a greater at a faster rate relative to wages. If we just were commensurate to productivity, there'd be no point in capitalist capitalizing on other people's labour.
if you build a chair and sell it for $100, you have $100. but if you have to build it for someone else and you only get $25, then how are you supposed to be able to purchase that $100 chair? Right? You understand? if every wage slave is actually producing more things and they can afford to buy, then there is a problem. if every wage slave is actually producing more things and they can afford to buy, then there is a problem, because jobs are tied to consumption. when you have a billionaire someone such as Jeff Bezos extracting billions of dollars from Labour, you're basically reduce the purchasing power of Labor by billions of dollars.
For example. Not too long ago Bill Gates was able to purchase the Canadian railroad thanks to privatization. His wealth went from 80 to 90 billion dollars as a result. That's 10 billion dollars that used to go to Canadian workers and infrastructure. you do understand that 10 billion dollars buys a lot of pizza, haircuts, trips to the bowling alley, toys for children, Etc. it's those purchases that maintain jobs. but if you have thousands of people stop buying Pizza, eventually the pizza man can no longer afford a haircut. and then the barber can no longer afford to go to the bowling alley. and then the person who owns the bowling alley can no longer afford to buy beer, Etc. You have a downward spiral. and this is why we have so much debt under capitalism. this is why credit cards were introduced to the general public a long time ago. as you extract more wealth from the workers, the more you need credit in order to maintain purchasing power.
so that's the problem. Under capitalism most of the wealth actually goes to the non-producing parasites rather than the actual workers. Workers do not have enough purchasing to maintain adequate levels of consumption.
worker cooperatives don't have that problem because wages are commensurate with production output. you don't end up with a huge and balance or disparity between wages and productivity. that's why you need an economic system where people actually get paid the full value of their labour.
oh, and I forgot to mention landlords. if you have to give 50% of your paycheck up to a landlord, you now have 50% less purchasing power. Anyway, capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation. The idea being that you can extract wealth without actually having to work. But the problem is every time you extract a dollar without working, somewhere else you have someone to work for a dollar that they don't get. Do you understand? Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. you have more money going to the parasites then to the actual workers. just like with the honey bees when too much honey is extracted, the bees can no longer survive. they end up malnourished and unable to fight off infections and survive throughout the winter. but of course you can't give a bee a credit card, instead what they do is they use high fructose corn syrup to replace the valuable honey that was stolen.
it's not hard to figure out. all you have to do is track where the money is going. under this system where does most of the money go? Does it go to the producer or does it go to parasite?
44% of the population is now earning $18,000 a year or less. The vast majority of the population can no longer afford a family on a single income. pretty amazing considering the fact that one hour of labour now produces almost three times the amount of output since 1950.
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/child-homelessness-highest-in-more-than-decade-feds-say/?platform=hootsuite
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/21/low-wage-work-is-more-pervasive-than-you-think-and-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/
>>> https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪︎ Low-Wage Jobs are the New American Normal.
Low-wage workers make up nearly half of the American workforce, and many of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-american-normal
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costs-administration/more-than-a-third-of-us-healthcare-costs-go-to-bureaucracy-idUSKBN1Z5261
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
■ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
■ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪︎ With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realtalk7547 , Richard is not saying you can't do it. He's explaining that under capitalism that for everyone winter you have to have many losers. It's like when you play the lottery. Yes, you can win a lot of money, but in order for you to win you have to have a lot of people that bought tickets that didn't win. Capitalism requires that there be more workers then owners. Like when it comes to landlords that own apartment building. It has to be more available tenants than landlords.
Richard explains that if you can own your own business, then yes, that would be preferable. Just like if you're able to own your own home that would be preferable to living in Cooperative housing. If you work or live in a Cooperative, then you can't have everything your own way. You're part of a family.
Richard is explaining that if you can't do it on your own, if you can't own your own business or factory, in your next best option is to do it collectively. That way you can remove the capitalist Middleman. Like this. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Richard also explains that if we had most of our GDP coming from worker-owned companies rather than capitalist Corporation, then most things will be made at home instead of third world countries. That's because worker-owned companies are tied to the community. Also when it comes to those workplaces the wealth flows to the workers. That causes the economy to expand because the workers can afford more stuff with greater purchasing power. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses.
The problem with capitalist companies is that their goal is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. The last workers get paid, the more profit the capitalist gets. But that actually makes it more difficult for people to start their own businesses because purchasing power is reduced for the majority while massively increased for a small minority.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. In order for it to exist you have to have a population where between 80 and 90% do not own the product of their labour and have no choice but to work for someone else. So if you do make it into the top 10% with determination, hard work and a bit of luck, that means someone else within that 10% ends up getting pushed back down to the bottom 90. Capitalism is a win-lose economic system. Anytime you have people accumulating masses of wealth without working, you have a lot of people that are working but not getting the full value of their labour. Win lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realtalk7547 , yes, of course it prevents other people from being successful. Society is only capable of creating so much wealth every year. The economy only Grows by so much every year. There are resources and technological limitations. If you have 99% of the pie going to 1% of the population, then the other ninety-nine percent of the population has to compete over the remaining 1%. That's like a game of musical chairs where a lot of people are going to be left standing.
You can't have groups of people making a hundreds of thousands of dollars per second just from their Capital Holdings while they're sleeping not have it cause poverty for putting large groups of people into a position where although never have an opportunity. Anytime you have a dollar that goes to someone who didn't work for it, somewhere else you have someone who worked for a dollar that they didn't get. It's not possible to earn a billion dollars. It's not possible to convert your labour energy into that much wealth.
You see, people should only be entitled to the wealth that they work for. Labour theory of ownership. There's nothing wrong with accumulating a lot of wealth, as long as you actually work for it without depriving other people. Labour includes both mental and physical efforts. Even if you could convert your labour energy into enough wealth or you could save $200,000 every year after expenses, it would still take you no less than 5 thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars.
That's one of the biggest problems with capitalism. Capitalism is not about working for a living. It is a system of exploitation. It is the economic system of parasites. Socialism is about working for a living. Capitalism is about owning for a living. That's why capitalist like to say that if you can't find a way to make money while you're sleeping, then you'll actually have to get a job. They say that you can't get rich while actually working. They also say things like you should never work hard for your money you should always make your money work hard for you.
The reason capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement is because workers weren't in the state of dependency. People had to be driven off of their land and separated from the resources with Force. If someone has the option of owning the product of their labour and getting all of the wealth of their labour produces, they're not going to work for someone like Jeff Bezos or at a company such as Walmart.
I'm not sure what you mean by forced socialism. Socialism is just workers collectively owning their own businesses and factories. That doesn't affect your business. Your business is yours.
1
-
@realtalk7547 , you see, capitalism is a pyramid scheme. If people have to work to produce a loaf of bread just so that they can afford a slice, then you're never going to have equilibrium between supply and demand. One of the goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Socialism Works economically because workers on the product of their labour. If they produce $5,000 of value, they now have $5,000 worth of personal power.
Why are the assembly line workers at the Socialist bread factory evil to make $70,000 a year? Because they own the product of their labour.
But if you're an assembly line worker at Walmart, or Amazon it doesn't matter whether you produce $70,000 worth of wealth or 70 million. All of that wealth and product belongs to someone else. You produce $70,000 worth of wealth but you only end up with about $20,000 worth of purchasing power. The ramifications in the community for small business owners are going to be very serious because they're not going to be able to compete for that limited purchasing power. The more desperate people become, the less purchasing power they have, the more they're going to have to resort to buying products at companies such as Walmart. So yes, of course capitalism causes massive poverty and deprived hundreds of thousands of people of opportunities that they normally would have had.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realtalk7547 , what makes you think I'm not calm? 🙂 is it the font I'm using?
Why do you keep talking about Force? What does Marxism have to do with Force? Marxism is a scientific system of analysis.
Yeah, of course people can start Cooperative businesses under capitalism. Everyone knows that. What does that have to do with anyting? People own private businesses under feudalism for hundreds of years. Is that some kind of justification for feudalism?
Dude, capitalism and markets are two different things. There are many different modes of production that utilizes markets for distribution. Socialism is more conducive to free markets and thriving economies because people own the product of their labour and get the full value of their labour. Under capitalism most of the wealth goes to the owners of capital, not those who work hard.
Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. That's why they get most of the wealth produced by Labour and why they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc.
Under capitalism the billionaires have most of the control and most things are made in third world countries.
Under socialism most things are made at home and most of the wealth goes to those who work for it. Workers get the full value of their labour and they own the product of their labour. That is freedom. And that's better for the market because when you increase purchasing power people can buy more stuff.
But when it comes to capitalist companies, the goal is to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible. That's bad for the market.
Again, if you truly believe what you're saying, then you would be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist.
And that's right, most people have a skewed understanding of what capitalism is and how it works. That's why it's very important to actually study the history of capitalism and its evolution. As well as it's different forms.
Keep in mind that capitalism is not about working. It is about owning capital. Also keep in mind that labour includes both mental and physical efforts. You need to understand that nearly producing something with your labour and selling it into the market is not capitalism! That's extremely important.
Capitalism:
A system of economic production whereby business owners (capitalists) acquire the means of production (capital) and hire workers who get paid for their labor.
Main Characteristics of Capitalist Economies
• Two-Class System.
• Private Ownership.
• Profit Motive.
• Competition.
• The Bottom Line.
• Workers do not own the product of their labour. Total output produced by workers is immediately and automatically the property of the employers.
There are two key features that make an economy capitalist:
1. most production of goods and services is undertaken by privately owned companies, which produce and sell their output in hopes of making a profit. This is called production for profit.
2. Most work in the economy is performed by people who do not own their company or their output, but are hired by someone else to work in return for a money wage or salary. This is called wage labor.
An economy in which private, profit-seeking companies undertake most production, and in which wage earning employees do most of the work, is a capitalist economy. These twins features - profit-driven production and wage labor - create particular patterns and relationships, which in turn shaped the overall functioning of capitalism as a system.
Any economy driven by these two features - production for profit and wage labor - tends to replicate the following trends and patterns, over and over again:
- fierce competition between private companies for markets, sales, and profit.
- innovation, as companies constantly experiment with new technologies, new products, and new forms of organisation - in order to succeed in that competition.
- An inherent tendency to growth, resulting from the desire of each individual company to make more profit.
- Deep inequality between those who own successful companies, and the rest of society who do not own companies.
- A general conflict of interest between those who work for wages, and the employers who hire them.
- Economic cycles or roller coasters, with periods of strong growth followed by periods of stagnation or depression : sometimes these cycles even produce dramatic economic and social crisis.
What is the difference between a capitalist company & a socialist company?
1. Socialist companies are cooperatively owned.
Capitalist companies are privately owned.
2. At socialist companies there is no employee-employer dynamic.
The workers are their own bosses. They all get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, etc.
3. At socialist companies workers own the product of their labour.
At capitalist companies workers do not own the product of their labour, everything they produce belongs to someone else.
4. Organization is either bottom up or horizontal.
Capitalism is a hierarchical, top-down system of organization.
5. Socialist companies are democratic.
Capitalist companies are extremely undemocratic; you do what you're told, or else!
6. The workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit.
7. Equality: at socialist companies everyone is equal in terms of voting power. One share equals one vote.
At a capitalist company workers don't have any voting power at all. That's why during the labour movement so many people fought and died for the right to unionize.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism: 1500-1980
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles .
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105.
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century.
1
-
@realtalk7547 , and why do you keep saying there's nothing stopping a person from starting a cooperative? Yes, under capitalism everyone knows that you're legally allowed to start a business. You pointing that out doesn't make any sense at all and has absolutely no relevance to the argument or anything that I've said.
Under the capitalist system you have to have more workers than owners. That's a simple mathematical fact. Just like when it comes to an apartment building you have to have more tenants than landlords. 😀
Saying that there's nothing stopping a person from starting a business, either cooperatively or individually, that's simply not true. If you're playing musical chairs with 100 people and there's only 10 chairs, how can you say there's nothing stopping you from getting a seat? Seriously? What Richard Wolff is explaining is that your chances of getting a seat or better if you act cooperatively. Billionaires can buy up grocery stores, electric companies, railroads, Etc. Like Bill Gates now owns the largest amount of Farmland in the United States and also owns a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system. Billions of dollars that used to go to workers now goes to Bill Gates. That's billions of dollars no longer being spent into the economy by Canadian workers.
However, your average worker cannot start a multibillion-dollar robotics Factory, for that matter, most workers can't even start simple business. But when you get together collectively, then it makes it easier to start a business. That's the point. If you can't do it individually, then try to do it collectively. That's what Richard Wolff is saying.
So why are you talking about Force? Why do you keep projecting these preconceived ideas?
So far, you haven't made any arguments at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , what are you talkin about? you haven't made any arguments. And the other guy gave up. Again, your statements make no sense.
Although I am going to add your last statement to your list of you're famous quotes. 😀
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam."
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality."
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
You don't understand how social Mobility is calculated. The higher your social Mobility, the more access you have to things such as education and Healthcare. The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index. "Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia"
▪ stating assumptions as fact
James Adams:
" I have definitely study the topics of socialism more than you have."
▪ James Adams:
"of course a free market requires capitalism. Capitalism is not at all antithetical to free markets."
How can you not possibly understand that markets predate capitalism by thousands of years? Seriously? Dude, you have some serious problems
▪ James Adams:
"there's nothing wrong with absolute capitalism"
What is that even supposed to mean? There's nothing wrong with pure, unregulated capitalism? No, of course corporations don't need to be regulated because they never endanger workers, exploit workers, poison the environment, produce dangerous products, would exploit child labour without child labour laws.
▪ James Adams:
"You can only have a free market under capitalism."
In my opinion this comment gets first place for being the dumbest! 😃
▪ James Adams:
"feudalism doesn't fall under the oligarchy category. They had a caste system." 😃😃😃😆
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not right-wing, dumbass. The fascists used collectivism. State ownership. That is socialism by definition. Quit spamming when you can't even get basic definitions right."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalist companies never extract wealth from labour. Quit lying about it."
Cites Koch brother-funded 'Foundation for Economic Education'! aka 'FEE'
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's on the left!"
▪ James Adams:
"Joe Biden is not right wing! He's a leftist! He is center-left!"
Okay. So then where would that leave Bernie Sanders? 😀 how can you be on the left side of the political Spectrum if you're anti-communist and anti-socialist while being pro-capitalist? Again, your comments make absolutely no sense.
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system of organizations. Socialism is top-down."
▪ James Adams:
"under capitalism workers always get paid the full value of their labour."
▪ James Adams:
"workers are never exploited under capitalism."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vladm.6859 , of course if you are an employee you're free to leave your job and find another employer. What does that have anything to do with what I said? Yes, that's one of the key differences between being a wage slave and being a chattel slave. As a chattel slave, your own outright. As a wage slave, your employer owns the product of your labour. When someone owns the product of your labour, you're basically nothing more than human livestock.
For example, there's a socially own bread factory in the United States where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. It is impossible for an assembly line worker to make that much money at a capitalist company. Why? because they do not own the product of their labour. if they make a million dollars worth of product, it belongs to their employer, so they basically made their employer a million dollars. But at the socially own bread factory since the workers are the actual owners oh, they can make $70,000 a year because everything they produce belongs to them.
And of course you sign a contract as an employee. Of course you agree to that contract. Do you have any idea how desperate people are for jobs? Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide or abuse drugs from the stress that comes from the possibility of losing their job? Decent paying jobs better full-time and have benefits, they are becoming more and more rare. that's one of the reasons wages are so low. Workers have to compete with one another for those jobs. automation comes along which replaces workers, those workers end up on the unemployment line with it got to compete with all the other unemployed people. It's a downward spiral. And other problems capitalism is the boss has the power to move production offshore. that increases competition even further!
anyway, whether you live in the United States or not, I would recommend reading a people's History of the United States. you might want to check out the public library and read about the long history of wage slavery in the US and around the world.
some history:
"In what way do wage slaves differ from chattel slaves?
The slave is sold once and for all; the wage slave must sell himself daily and hourly.
The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual wage slave, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The slave is outside competition; the wage slave is in it and experiences all its vagaries.
The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the wage slave, while the wage slave belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.
The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a wage slave; the wage slave slave can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
page 410
1
-
@vladm.6859 , what do you mean how would the bread factory work in practice? you make it sound like the bread factory is theoretical And doesn't exist. but it does exist. There are hundreds of thousands of these types of workplaces. If you want to know how the bread factory works, why don't you call them up and ask them. I'm sure that the more than happy to do an interview over the phone or Skype.
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
for the vast majority of people on the planet, capitalism is the opposite of freedom. Gene Epstein, and many people like him, are paid by billionaires connected to the oil and banking industry. of course they want people to believe that capitalism is the best system because it does offer them maximum freedom. Maximum freedom for them, means minimal freedom for everyone else. freedom and democracy depends on how much you can afford. 😀 https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See from the 41;30 minute Mark.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , how long have we had the 40 Hour Work Week? How much is productivity increase over that time? Why haven't working hours decreased even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950? Because most of the wealth goes to the richest 1%. Because most things produced under capitalism belong to someone else. It's like when a cow produces more milk. It doesn't go to the cow, it goes to the farmer.
The top 1% holds nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%.
In a paper that uses new data and methods to measure top wealth in the United States, Matthew Smith (Treasury) Owen Zidar (Princeton), and Eric Zwick (Chicago Booth) provide a detailed picture of how America’s ultra-rich build wealth and the pace at which inequality has grown.
Their findings show that wealth is very concentrated: The top 1% holds nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%.
~ Princeton University
~ Chicago Booth, global business school
~ National Bureau of Economic Research
The only reason that we're not working 16 hours a week today is because workers fought and died to achieve the 10-hour day, the eight-hour day, Etc. The capitalist class did everything they could to prevent workers from achieving regulations, the eight-hour day, child labour laws, old age pensions, weekend, Etc.
You need to stop getting your information from organizations such as prageru.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@V4Andy and what does any of that have to do with Democratic workplaces in the United States? It makes no sense for you to be talking about third world countries and situations that occurred almost a hundred years ago. do you have any idea what China had gone through during the previous 100 years? Are you not familiar with the century of humiliation? Do you know what happened did China during those 100 years? you have any idea what Russia was going through, and had gone through, during the time you're referring to? I just doesn't make any sense for you to be using such examples. you might as well be saying why were the Japanese having a hard time economically after we drop two atomic bombs on them. and Venezuela? again, a third world country that is dependant upon a oil exports and is under heavy sanctions by the United States. do you have any idea what those sanctions have done to their economy? it's bad enough that they're a third world country which had been heavily decimated by imperialism over the last 150 years, but to make matters worse, United States has had heavy sanctions on that country for decades. Longer than the US has been at war with Afghanistan! and then, on top of that, nationalization doesn't have anything to do with the subject we're talking about. Countries like the United States, Canada, Britain, we have an entirely different problem. thanks to technology we can produce far more than we're capable of consuming. we're suffering from an epidemic of overproduction. industry can't even come close to running at 100% capacity. Do you have any idea how many factories, how many tools, how many means of production are sitting idle in the United States right now and have been idle for the last decade? hundreds of billions of dollars in machines just sitting there rusting away wow people are homeless, unemployed, the infrastructure is falling apart, Etc.
anyway, We know exactly how well Democratic workplaces compared to capitalist Enterprises. there's no shortage of data or history to go by.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪︎ pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're talking about a very complicated subject. You think he can sum it all up within a few minutes? Dude, the guy wrote a 400 page textbook on the subject. 😃 are you one of those individuals that demands instant understanding without doing any work? Do you have any idea what the Soviet Union went through during its existence? Right from the beginning when the poor, uneducated, illiterate workers were able to extricate themselves from the czars rule, the first thing the United States did was send troops into the country along with several other countries in order to destroy those workers. Japanese troops didn't even leave Russian soil until 1922. Those Farmers had only the most basic tools. Had no indoor plumbing, no electricity, they couldn't read or write, etc. They did the best they could. The Soviet Union was under constant attack! And then, the United States also funded and equipped terrorist and enemies of the Soviet union. Like they did in Afghanistan back in the '70s by funding and equipping the mujahideen intelliban for the purpose of destroying the Afghan democracy and the Soviet union. Not my opinion, a matter of public record.
So yeah, it's a very complicated subject. Even a 400 page textbook doesn't do it justice. And you expect it all to be summed up in a few minutes?
And what's the point of your comment anyway? Are you suggesting that Richard wolf has some reason for wanting to be disingenuous? What exactly are you trying to say?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kunfucious577 , well yeah, of course it was an experiment. Same with capitalism. It doesn't matter if you're dealing with Socialism or capitalism, if you give dictatorial powers to an individual such as Adolf Hitler and removed checks and balances that protect you from the abuses of power and wealth, while you're going to end up with problems. Germany prior to World War II was a capitalist country. Saudi Arabia is a capitalist country. Again, it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with Socialism or capitalism, a government can become either more or less democratic under either system.
You don't know how worker cooperatives work? Well, you'll have to do some research.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kunfucious577 , yes, worker cooperatives have managers and other organizers. The difference is, those managers are not dictators. It's kind of like when a symphony orchestra hires a conductor. The conductor can guide and lead the orchestra, but he's not a dictator. He can be fired at any moment. At a democratic worker Cooperative the workers have complete and total sovereignty. That means there is no greater Authority. The workers get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy.
Capitalism is about selling the product of someone else's labour. Socialism is when you're selling the product of your own labour. At worker cooperatives workers are doing their own work. They're not getting someone else to do their work. capitalism is about not working for your money, it's about making your money work hard for you. That basically means living off of other people's labour. Socialism is about actually working for a living rather than living off other people's labour through capital. Capitalism is a parasitic system. Socialism is a symbiotic system. Capitalism is a top-down, hierarchical undemocratic system of organization. Socialism is a democratic, bottom up, non hierarchical system of organization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jana-fp8qp , well yeah, they're never going to give up their power without a fight. People like JPMorgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, they did everything in their power to prevent the working-class from achieving the right to unionize, from achieving the eight-hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, child labour laws, Etc. But because the working class was Unified we achieved the 8-hour day and five day work week. Something we now take for granted. And if the capitalist class has its way, they're going to roll everything back to where we no longer have a choice but to work more than 40 hours a week in order to survive.
But yeah, things are looking good. With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. There's going to be a lot of unemployed people in the future because the owning class simply does not need as many workers today as it used to in order to produce all of the goods and services needed by Society. That's the way it was back before we had the eight-hour day. Mechanization and assembly lines made it possible to double production output. 50% of the workforce was no longer needed. If you wanted to be one of the 50% that got a job, you had to be the most educated, and willing do the most work for the least amount.
of money.
So, workers either have to become independent by forming cooperatives, or they're going to have to force the capitalist class once again to cut working hours and half without reducing wages. Now they're talking about introducing a universal basic income in order to maintain rates of consumption.
Anyway, I don't know what's going to happen. It certainly is an interesting time in history. But who knows, global warming will probably destroy us anyway
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you checked out the statistics regarding worker-owned companies? Workers produce everything! Who you think capitalist hire to get the work done? Engineers, scientists, pipefitters, electricians, Carpenters, Etc. Our economy is the sum total of all our work. Keep in mind that labour includes both mental and physical efforts.
Statistically speaking, not only are worker-owned companies better for workers and communities, they're more stable, more durable, and workers are happier, more creative, more productive, they take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, mental illness, Etc.
Also, there's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world. There's a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker-owned companies.
Under the capitalist system most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members of society. So not only do they get most of the wealth produced by labour, they get to make most of the decisions. That's why most things are made in China, why wages are so low, and why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as a poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. Meanwhile, over 40 million Americans require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! And that was before the pandemic. The pandemic drove another hundred million people into poverty. And that's because the for-profit capital system can't mobilize resources effectively to deal with pandemics.
However, because worker-owned companies are tied to the community, if more of our GDP were coming from those types of businesses, most things would be made at home and most of that money would be flowing to the workers. That's more conducive to a free market in thriving economy because workers tend to spend their money into the Market. That creates more demand.
Capitalist companies however, their goal is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. But that violates basic Market in economic principles in regards to equilibrium. The more successful capitalist company is, the more goods and services you have in circulation and the less purchasing power workers have. That's why, technically speaking, capitalism is an anti economic system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sethtwc , well of course people don't get paid fairly when they work as employees at capitalist companies. The goal is to maximize profit. That means getting the workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. But that's not conducive to a free-market or thriving economy because you end up with a situation where the workers can't actually afford all the goods and services they're producing. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Capitalism violates that very basic principle. You obviously can't have an economic system where production output increases at a greater rate than income. That's why there's so much debt under capitalism. Jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Capitalism is a debt based system.
However, socialism doesn't have that problem. That's because workers get paid the full value of their labour. If they produced $70,000 worth of wealth, they now have $70,000 worth of purchasing power. Balance is maintained.
Of course socialism works. When the workers own their own companies and factories, they get to make the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, excetera. And that's how it should be. Worker-owned companies are tied to the community. The workers don't have to worry about being forced to work in unsafe working conditions. They don't have to worry about being forced to pollute their own environment. They don't have to worry about having their wages cut. They don't have to worry about production being moved to a different country.
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
socialism is economic democracy. Capitalism is economic feudalism. Under capitalism most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They also get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid. That's what we call a plutocracy. Rule by money. Whoever controls the capital also controls the market. Whoever controls the market also controls the government. And of course the capitalists to use the government to minimize risks and increase their profits.
1
-
@lepidoptera9337 , no, not all forms of socialism involve government ownership.
The core concept of socialism is worker and Community ownership. Direct worker ownership predates State socialism. The idea of indirect ownership through the government, public ownership, that came at a later time in history. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.
Socialism:
1. "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• "Socialism is an economic and political system. It is an economic theory of social organization. It states that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the workers. This means the money made belongs to the workers who make the products, instead of groups of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists." ~
Durlauf, Steven N.; E. Blume, Lawrence. "socialism". DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS. Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
• "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital00mich
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles https://tinyurl.com/y6xqz7cw
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge. . ISBN 978-0415241878.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
1
-
1
-
@sethtwc , it's really important to be able to differentiate between State socialism (SOEs) and non-state socialism (WSDEs). Richard Wolff is arguing in favour of workers self-directed Enterprises. Not state-owned Enterprises.
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
@sethtwc , once a person can differentiate between State and non-state socialism, that it's important to look at hard empirical data so that we can make an informed decision.
They're all kinds of studies on the subject. I'll give a few examples.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪ Study number 5: The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dore 2024!
Yes, I know, it’s always premature to discuss the next presidential contest. But I’ll make my pick for 2024 known now: Jimmy Dore.
For those who dismiss a comedian running for the highest office, I say, why not? Dick Gregory ran for president in 1968 as a write-in candidate for the Freedom and Peace Party. The comedian and civil rights activist used his run to energize the anti-war movement, draw attention to the needs of the working class and the harassment many people of color still faced following the passage of numerous civil rights bills.
Gregory, although he only accumulated close to 50,000 votes, frightened the Nixon administration with his campaign. Personnel in the Nixon White House feared Gregory may become the “black messiah” J. Edgar Hoover long warned about. Shortly after that warning, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Fred Hampton were gunned down. Fearful of his profile and his building of a true rainbow coalition, Gregory was placed on Nixon’s dreaded enemies list.
I sincerely believe a Dore presidential campaign could have the same effect. It could empower various social movements and make the oligarchs and their two corporate/puppet parties quake in their boots. Dore could start the race with genuine grassroots support and funding from the people.
Dore has expressed both interest and some hesitancy. But if history is any guide, I say he shouldn’t be worried. Run, Jimmy! Scare the oligarchs and empower the people!
Dore 2024!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Democracy is not a disaster. The disaster is we have an economic system that allows the richest members of our society to own and control the wealth producing technology and resources. These resources end up going to the highest bidders. So they end up owning the water supply, the electric company, the railroads, apartment buildings, parking lots, Labs were people get their blood tested, hospitals, insurance companies, manufacturing plants, Etc. Everyone else has to pay rent in usage fees. That's why we have to work 40 hours a week. That's how you end up with billionaires. In the real world is not possible for a person to actually earn a billion dollars. Even if you were making $100,000 a year it would still take you 100,000 years to amass 1 billion dollars. all wealth comes from mixing labour with capital. It's not possible for an individual to accumulate a million dollars a year. Let alone an hour! There are some billionaires actually amassing two million dollars per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just off of their Capital Holdings. Where do you think that money comes from? It comes from workers. That's why most people can't afford have a family on a single income anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@limitisillusion7 , yes. Capitalism is the problem. It allows the richest members of society to own most of the capital on the planet. That creates a massive power imbalance right there. If I wanted to open a restaurant or a coffee shop tomorrow, I would have to pay about $20,000 a month in rent to some landlord. I can't even buy a cup of coffee or a can of beans without having to pay extortion fees to a capitalist owner and landlord. The capitalist owners. Under capitalism the government and the law are also controlled by the owning class which allows them to maintain control and ownership of their private property.
Sure, workers can organize but you still have the slave / master dynamic. The owners can move production to a different province, state, country, Etc. They can claim bankruptcy under one corporate entity and then re-establish production under a completely different name.
With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labor. e.g. A car manufacturing plants can be run by a handful of people, turning out hundreds of thousands of cars a day. Everything produced belongs to Rich shareholders. Citizens have to pay extortion fees in order to gain access to what is produced.
It's kind of like arguing that feudalism isn't really a problem. Or that slavery isn't really a problem because if people organized and they can get Fair treatment.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. That is a serious problem. In order to for people to be free and get the true value of their labor, you have to have economic democracy. And that's what socialism is. Economic democracy. Saying that feudalism an economic feudalism is not a problem as long as workers are organized, well that's just not true. As long as the Masters maintain control over the means of production and the resources necessary for survival, there's always going to be a problem.
And the United States is not between socialism and capitalism. I don't even think of fraction of the GDP come from worker-owned companies. The concentration of wealth and capital ownership is higher today than it is or has been in the history of the world.
And again, when you work for an employee, you can never get the full value of your labor. It's not possible. You're going to lose time off of your life producing profit for other people. Human beings are not livestock. If a person Works 8 hours they should be paid for 8 hours. The full 8 hours. Why should anyone have to work extra hours in order to pay for some landlord's lifestyle, some capitalists Factory? When you have a system where one group of people, the capitalists, are living off of other people's labor, you're going to have a situation where workers could not get the full value of their labor. It's not possible. They can organize so that they can reduce their exploitation to it's barest minimum, But ultimately it's the wealth produced by the workers that have to pay for the landlord's lifestyle, the factory and the tools of the capitalists, Etc. That all amounts to unpaid labor. Why would any human being give up decades off of their life pay for someone else's Factory or tenement?
When the new deal was proposed, the working class was divided. Half wanted to accept the deal and the other half wanted to take control of the capital. People such as Emma goldman, big Bill haywood, Eugene Victor debs, and many others, they know that if we didn't go all of the way and take control of the capital, it would only be a matter of time before the ruling class was able to roll back any Privileges and protections under the law that the workers had gained under the New Deal. Under capitalism unionizing and regulating or only temporary measures.
We should have transitioned away from capitalism a long time ago. It's extremely undemocratic. Doesn't matter what kind of privileges workers can obtain for themselves. They are still in a Master / Slave situation where are one side gets to dictate the orders and owns everything that's produced and the other side has to follow orders and owns nothing of what is produced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@limitisillusion7 , you see, capitalism is not about working. It's about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labor. Capitalists buy apartment buildings, houses, grocery stores, Electric companies, railroads, and then try to maximize their profit. That increases the cost of living and the amount of work that the rest of us have to do.
That's why so many people turn to socialism and communism, even in the United states. Here's an example of Communism at the micro level.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
that community pays for electricity at cost because they own their own means of production. The workers get paid top dollar and no expense is spared on quality, infrastructure and safety. But when you buy electricity from capitalist companies you're not just paying for the infrastructure and the labor, there's a huge amount of money going to people like Bill Gates and Donald Trump. And there's lots of examples of tragic incidents that have resulted because they cut corners on safety in order to maximize profit.
For example, in Norway if there's an explosion or fire that breaks out on an oil platform in the ocean, there's acoustic shut-off valves that will prevent the oil from leaking into the water. Just prior to the major oil disaster in the United States, the oil company went on records stating that they didn't spend money on acoustic shut-off valves because they weren't necessary and very expensive. And look at all the people that froze to death in Texas because they didn't upgrade their electrical infrastructure to compensate for the increasing colder temperatures during the winter.
When you need water, food, medicine, you shouldn't have to pay extortion fees to someone like Bill gates. When you want a job you shouldn't have to constantly be increasing your human capital in order to increase your volume to someone like Bill Gates and compete with other workers.
Capitalism is economic feudalism.
Sure, if you're in prison, you can organize with your fellow inmates in order to gain more privileges, better treatment, improved laws and regulations, but you're still under their thumb! Likewise, everything you produce at a capitalist Company still belongs to someone else. And the portion of wealth that they extract, even at its minimum, still represents unpaid labor. Who in the right mind wants to constantly be working in a Master Slave environment? Where one group of people get to give the orders and extract as much profit as possible while the other group has to do all of the work and only gets a portion of the wealth they create? It's crazy.
It's far better to have an economic system were people actually have to work for a living. This whole notion of living off of other people's labor should have been overthrown a long time ago. If you want something, work for it! Don't buy a McDonald's or a grocery store and then get an army of poor desperate workers to produce as much wealth as possible. One of the reasons groceries are costing so much now it's because capitalist by food products and then resell them at the highest price possible! 😀 there's one grocery store chain where I live we decided to double the price of olive oil, selling it at $20 a bottle. The openly admitted that they just wanted to see how many bottles they could sell at that price. And then they reduced the price by $5 calling it a sale. They put out a flyer with all these amazing price rollbacks, that's what they called them. But technically speaking, olive oil didn't decrease by 5.00. It increased by $5. It's like something out of 1984. 😀 the other day I talked to the landlord and I asked him why he literally doubled rent over the last 2 years. He said he's going to charge as much as he can get away with.
1
-
@limitisillusion7 , like I said, people can get organized in order to get a greater portion of the wealth that they produced. What workers should be able to get all of the wealth that they produced. Not just a portion of it. Those who own and control the mean of subsistence along with the government and police to protect that private property, they're going to have a huge advantage over the general population. But when workers own their own means of production, that makes them less dependent upon capitalist corporations and the government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. We need economic democracy. Why would you want to continue living under Democratic feudalism with constant contention between the owning class and the wage slaves? Why would you want to maintain such an archaic system that's based on exploitation? If you don't own the product of your labor, then you're nothing more than human livestock. Doesn't matter how much the cows organize and negotiate. The fact is the cow should own the milk that they produce. Not some farmer. Human beings are not cows. 😀
Every time the working class is able to organize and erect regulations and extend the floor of the cage by getting more privileges, each and every time, over and over again, the ruling class ends up circumventing those gains all the while living in extreme opulence while the workers have to do all of the fighting, all of the working, all of the organizing, etc. Over and over and over again. How long do you want this to continue? how many times do you want to repeat the cycle? Emma Goldman and Eugene Victor debs, and many others, pointed out before accepting the New Deal that if we don't take control of the capital so that we can be independent, if we leave control of the capital in the hands of the ruling class, it's only going to be a matter of time before they roll back all the progress that we made. They were right! Why the hell should you have to pay someone like Bill Gates extra money to get a blood test or buy an apple? To hell with fighting for more privileges. We don't need capitalists. Capitalists are unnecessary middlemen that just increase the cost of living and the amount of work the rest of us have to do. You should have had a 20 hour work week a long time ago. But people need to work 40 hours for longer because the cost of living is so high and wages are so low. What drives up the cost of living? What drives wages downward?
You do not need capitalism in order to have a business, have a market, have innovation, have people selling and trading with one another, etc. So what's the point of leaving the ruling class in control of the means of subsistence?
Your argument is that we should maintain the capitalist system because if workers are more effective at networking than they can get more privileges? What the hell are you talking about? 😀 you should be trying to end slavery, not talking about how much power the slaves have to increase their Privileges and protections under the law. You should be addressing why they are slaves in the first place
1
-
1
-
@limitisillusion7 , of course we need more class organization. Until the capitalist system has been relegated to the trash bin of History we need to keep fighting for Privileges and protections under the law. More regulations that protect workers and the environment. Electoral reform such as getting rid of first pass the post and implementing more democratic systems such as instant runoff voting and proportional representation. We need to make it easier for people to get funding for the purpose of starting worker cooperatives. We need to increase education availability regarding worker cooperatives, how they work, how they can be formed, operated, etc. But this time we can't make the same mistakes like we did with the new deal. This time we need to go all the way with the complete abolition of capitalism.
economic democracy n.
Economic democracy means that the participants in economic institutions (e.g. factories, stores and universities) decide on the policy of the institution.
Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public.
What Richard Wolff is saying is not new concept in the United States.
"Socialism is merely an extension of the ideal of democracy into the economic field."
~ Eugene Victor Debs, 1893.
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BingChilingEnjoyer , well I don't see why it can't be applicable on a larger scale. look at Mondragon. Over a hundred and twenty thousand workers that own their own Bank, University, Hospital, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, Etc.
almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from these types of democratic, worker-owned cooperatives.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
@BingChilingEnjoyer , well, first off, it's not my idea. This is what certain types of Communists and socialists are trying to achieve. the idea goes back to the time of the Enlightenment. The idea that since the workers actually build the machines, the factories, come up with the technological ideas, Etc, they should actually be the owners.
You see, under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the money produced by labour and they get to make all the decisions.
however, if the workers or communities own the capital, then they can keep all the money that the companies produce and they can make all the decisions collectively, democratically. Communism comes from the word community. For example, almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from community-owned Electrical cooperative. https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
Cooperatives can become quite huge. the Mondragon cooperative was started by a Catholic priest with five guys. The first company was called Talleres Ulgor, an acronym derived from the surnames of Usatorre, Larrañaga, Gorroñogoitia, Ormaechea, and Ortubay, known today as "Fagor Electrodomésticos".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagor
they went from 5 workers to a hundred and twenty thousand. and now they have their own bank, University, Hospital, Etc.
when new people get hired they have to buy their way in. a portion of your income will go toward buying the share. One worker gets one share. One share equals one vote. when you retire, you get your money back.
keep in mind there are different types of cooperatives. Some might function differently than others.
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
Part 1
Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
1
-
@BingChilingEnjoyer , Part 2
Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the point is that the workers get all of the money when they collectively owned a democratic business or factory. when an employee works at capitals company, he does not get all of the money that has labour produces. That's why it's possible for an assembly line worker to make $70,000 a year at a bread factory but only minimum wage at a capitalist company.
There is a Cooperative in Spain with a hundred and twenty thousand workers. There's plenty of incentive for expansion. They started off small, and now they own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, Hospital, University, Etc. Their research and development is so Advanced that they get contracts from Intel, Ford Motor Company and Microsoft. just to name a few.
Capitalism reduces workers to human livestock. And that's why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week. Doesn't matter that productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. All increases in productivity go to the owners of capital just like all the milk produced by a cow goes to the farmer. Corporations do everything they can to maximize profits. and that means they have specialists to figure out how to lower production costs. and they have been very successful. Most people can no longer afford a family on a single income. More and more of the wealth produced by labour is going to the shareholders. If you have 50% more of the wealth going to shareholders instead of workers, how can you not expect rates of consumption to slow by 50%? Jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. So any erosion in purchasing power has to be offset with increase access to credit. the problem is, the interest attached to debt only serves to reduce purchasing power even further. and when the credit Runs Out, consumption slows, people dump their socks, and the economy takes a major downturn.
capitalism is a religion. That should be obvious if anyone just takes the time to examine its basic workings
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , all the person has to do is look at your comments to know that you're an uneducated person. Just to give a few examples,
▪ James Adams:
"Workers do not get anything more FOR THEIR LABOUR when they are the owners. That is a lie! They get more money FOR THEIR CAPITAL you absolute clown."
@James Adams , yeah, if you have a machine that can quadruple the output of your labour, then obviously your labour is going to be more valuable. 😃 you can now do 4 hours worth of work in one hour. That's obviously a lot more value for your labour. LOL
James Adams:
"You just keep repeating the nonsense that I debunked. What is wrong with your reading comprehension?"
@James Adams , obviously you're the one that has a problem with reading comprehension. Obviously if you can do three times the amount of work in one hour, your work is going to be more valuable. You now have three times the product you can sell. That means three times the amount of money. That means your labours is worth three times as much.
▪ James Adams:
"Democracy is cringe garbage."
▪ James Adams:
"Capitalism does not require a government moron. Quit projecting."
Government moron? 😀 maybe you should run for office?
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mass stupidity is an issue with capitalism, not socialism. Look at socialist companies around the world. We have dated going back almost 200 years. In those bottom-up, Democratic non-hierarchical systems of organization we see that mistakes are less likely to occur. But when it comes to capitalist organization, then not only do you have to worry about stupidity, you have to worry about greed and Corruption. That's because those of the top have massive power over those underneath. They have dictatorial powers.
Adam Smith pointed out over 200 years ago that capitalism would greatly reduce the intelligence of workers. Citizens become mindless drones because they're usually only knowledgeable of one specific area cooperation. But when it comes to socialist companies, workers become knowledgeable all areas of operation. If you look at the statistics, workers are not only smarter, they're more creative, intuitive, happier, more efficient, Etc. There's less incidence of mental illness, depression, substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, Etc.
That type of organization makes option virtually impossible. You don't have to worry about workers being forced to pollute their own environment, you don't have to worry about production being moved to a third world country. You don't have to worry about workers being forced to labour and unsafe conditions, Etc. And of course even if you did have greedy people, no one's going to take the chance of being ostracized. The workers are not going to poison their own Neighbors in order to make a few extra dollars.
And because the wealth actually goes to the workers, the workers have more money to spend into the community. That causes the economy to expand. Trickle up instead of trickle down. It becomes easier for people to start their own small businesses because you have more demand. Capitalist companies, on the other hand, they siphon most of the wealth from communities. The goal is to maximize profit. So they try to keep wages as low as possible. That causes the economy to contract because workers don't have adequate purchasing power to maintain jobs through consumption. We now have a situation where the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. So now most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income and we have most things being made in China. Not only do we have stupid people at the top in control of the entire economy and government, we're also dealing with individuals that are no longer rational due to their own hubris and God complex.
1
-
1
-
@zarlok5294 , again, we have data going back almost 200 years! We know exactly how well socialist Enterprises compare to capitalist Enterprises. Ironically, there are billionaire business owners that are actually making more money because they made their businesses more socialist! 😃 https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE
Hypothetically, if you were an engineer/ programmer, or just an average worker, would you rather work at a company such as Huawei, or would you rather work for Bill Gates at Microsoft?
"Huawei is a company wholly owned by its employees. No government or any third party holds shares in our company, intervenes in our operations, or influences our decision-making.
No one can own a share without working at Huawei, and as of 2018 there were 96,768 shareholding employees.
Huawei pays out US$9.65 billion in dividends to current and retired staff
Huawei overtook Ericsson in 2012 as the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world, and overtook Apple in 2018 as the second-largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world, behind Samsung Electronics. In 2018, Huawei reported annual revenue of US$108.5 billion. In July 2020, Huawei surpassed Samsung and Apple in the number of phones shipped worldwide."
1
-
1
-
The problem with capitalism is that most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. When workers actually own their own Capital, then they get most of the wealth produced by their labour. And they get to be their own bosses. That's the argument.
for example, there is a socially owned bread factory in the United States were assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. that's because those workers own the product of their labour. So when they make a million dollars worth of bread, that money goes to them. But if you are an employee, and you make a million dollars worth of bread, you basically made a million dollars for someone else.
Let's look at some worker testimony just to consider some of the advantageous:
• How about the Ocean Spray cranberry cooperative? Do those workers make minimum wage? 2000 employees produce roughly one and a half billion dollars annually. So how much do you think the workers get paid?
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
• how about these Cooperative owners in Argentina? Do you think they're making more or less money now that they are the actual owners? Do you think the business is actually doing better or worse now that the workers actually own the company and operated democratically? https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
• when you pay your electric bill, when you buy a home, when you buy a condo, Etc, do you want to be buying these things at cost! Or do you want to be putting money into other the pocket of middlemen that aren't actually doing any work or contributing anything? https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
• do you think these workers are making minimum wage? Or are they making a living wage? doesn't sound like they're enjoying being able to actually share in the decision-making process? Does it sound like they are happier having more freedom and control, along with getting paid more? https://youtu.be/8vJDhKMrncw
• these Cooperative is definitely provide more equality, freedom and prosperity compared to capitalist Enterprises. Along with that they have acceptance, the advantage pooling their resources for their families and community, autonomy & Independence (allowed to be unique, it's actually valued instead of discouraged), teaching and education are part of the job -not just simply producing like a Mindless robot!, support, real and genuine concern for your fellow workers and community, sustainable development, etc, etc. https://youtu.be/NO-8iI7GW70
• Evergreen cooperatives! One of the reasons they exist is because it's impossible have a quality life when only making minimum wage. They provide people with a living wage. https://youtu.be/4zU8_ofpPyQ
• even in poor countries during the financial crisis, the workers are still making a living wage, often much more than their American counterparts. https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, everything he says is based on hard empirical data. Socialist companies are much better for the economy and free-market. First, workers don't have to worry about having their livelihood move to a different country nor do they have to worry about being forced to work in unsafe working conditions. Second, when the wealth flows to the workers, those workers spend that money into the economy. That creates more demand. You have people buying more pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. The economy expands. However, when it comes to capitalist Enterprises, goal is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. But that creates a huge disparity between supply and demand. You have too much Supply but not enough purchasing power. That's extremely problematic because jobs are tied to consumption. But at socialist companies the workers get the full value of their labour. Labor-saving technology reduces working hours while increasing the purchasing power of the worker. You have an equilibrium between supply and demand.
Richard wolf knows exactly what he's talking about.
Capitalism doesn't make any sense. Literally, the more successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have. How crazy is that? Does that sound like rational economics to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the janitor wouldn't have the same decision-making ability of Elon Musk.
Richard Wolff is pointing out that when you work at a capitals company you are basically working at a dictatorship. The boss gets to decide when you work, how hard you work, what you can wear, when you eat, whether or not you get a coffee break. They can even dictate when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
But at socialist companies there is no dictatorship. The workers have sovereignty. Sovereignty means no higher authority. Each worker controls one share. One share equals one vote.
So, at a socialist company, the janitor wouldn't have the same decision-making power is Elon Musk. They would get one vote. If all of the other experts in the company agreed with the janitor, then idea might be implemented.
There's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world. Huawei is just one example. Not only do the workers have sovereignty, they get all of the wealth that their labour produces. In other words, they get the full value of their labour, something that's not possible when you work at a capitalist company
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , US leaders have supported some of the most notorious right-wing autocracies in history—régimes that have pursued policies favoring wealthy transnational corporations at the expense of local producers and working people; régimes that have tortured, killed, or otherwise maltreated large numbers of their more resistant citizens, as in (at one time or another) Chad, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Honduras, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Philippines, Chile (under Pinochet), Cuba (under Batista), Congo/Zaire (under Mobutu), Nicaragua (under Somoza), Iran (under the Shah), Iraq (under Saddam Hussein until 1990), Morocco (under King Hassan), and Portugal (under Salazar), to offer an incomplete listing.
US imperialists have assisted counterrevolutionary insurgencies that have perpetrated brutal bloodletting against civilian populations; for example, Unita in Angola, Renamo in Mozambique, the contras in Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge (during the 1980s) in Cambodia, the mujahedeen and then the Taliban in Afghanistan (in the 1980s and 1990s against a Soviet-supported reformist government), and (in 1999–2000) the drug-dealing Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army in Yugoslavia (originally deemed a terrorist organization by the US State Department). All this is a matter of public record, although it is seldom if ever reported in the US media.
Support for rightists extends to Nazism itself. After World War II, US leaders and their western capitalist allies did little to eradicate fascism from Europe, except for putting some of the top Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg. In short time, many former Nazis and their active collaborators were back in the saddle in Germany.
Hundreds of Nazi war criminals found a haven in the United States, either living in comfortable anonymity or employed by US intelligence agencies during the Cold War.
CUBA IS ONE OF THE FEW COUNTRIES that has managed to resist—at great cost—the US counterrevolutionary juggernaut. For over a half century the island nation has been subjected to an array of hostile actions designed to undermine its economy and government. The empire justifies its aggression with a familiar mantra: Cuba is a communist régime, a threat to our freedom and an oppression to its own people; therefore we must strive for régime change, of a kind we have imposed on many other countries. Much of the American public swallows this line. We might want to question it.
https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluecollarbullionballer4269 , There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
There are 3 main types of ownership:
you have private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), and you have communism (no class, money or state). https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeramylaneholt , of course we have a capitalist Society. Most of our GDP and jobs come from privately owned means of production. That is a capitalist economy. Yes, of course the capitalists have a massive influence over the government. When you have billions and billions of dollars at your disposal, influencing the government is just another part of doing business.
And what do you mean you're against socialism in every form? What's wrong with workers getting together collectively so that they can have their own business, Factory, or utility? https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
billionaires can easily Buy railroads, (such as Bill Gates who now owns a huge chunk of the Canadian Railway system and he's also the largest owner of Farmland in the United States), grocery stores, apartment buildings, restaurant franchises, excetera, excetera.
But your average citizen can't afford those things. That's why they get together collectively, socially, so that they obtain those things which allow them to own the product of their labour and achieve sovereignty over their labour and what they produce. You actually have a problem with that? Well then you're a huge part of the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , competition -> winners -> competition between winners -> stronger winners -> ..
Capitalism gravitates toward monopoly for many reasons:
1. Economies of Scale: In many industries, larger companies can produce goods or services more efficiently and at a lower cost per unit. This makes it difficult for smaller competitors to compete, leading to the consolidation of market power in the hands of a few large firms.
2. Barriers to Entry: Monopolies or oligopolies arise when there are significant barriers to entry in an industry, such as high startup costs, access to distribution channels, or intellectual property protection. These barriers can discourage new competitors from entering the market.
3. Network Effects: Some industries, like social media or telecommunications, exhibit network effects. The more users a platform or network has, the more valuable it becomes. This creates a winner-takes-all scenario, where a single dominant player emerges.
4. Mergers and Acquisitions: Large companies acquire or merge with smaller competitors, further concentrating market power.
5. Regulatory Capture: Powerful corporations can influence or capture regulatory agencies, shaping regulations in their favor. This allows them to stifle competition or maintain their dominant position in the market.
6. Innovation and Patents: Companies with significant resources can invest in research and development and secure patents, protecting their innovations from competition for a certain period. This leads to monopolistic advantages in technology-driven industries.
And the list goes on and on. Can you imagine how bad things would be if we didn't have antitrust laws and regulations?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Communism doesn't go against human nature. People were living communally for at least 70,000 years years. Capitalism has only been around for about 250 years. Capitalism goes against Human Nature. There's numerous studies that have been done. Capitalism is a religion. Do you think in the natural world it would be possible for a person to convert their labour energy into a billion dollars? Even with modern labor-saving technology it's not possible to convert a person's labour energy into that much wealth. Even if you could save $100,000 a year after all expenses, it would still take you do less than 10,000 years to accumulate 1 billion dollars.
Capitalism is technically a religion and an anti economic system. It actually destroys free markets. Free markets require a balance between supply and demand. That's why one of the main goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. But the goal of capitalism is in direct opposition to that goal. The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. Therefore it's not possible for workers to be able to earn enough money to buy all of the goods and services that they put in circulation. However, if all of those goods and services are not sold, the economy contracts. If the economy contracts, people get laid off and can't consume. That's why there's so much debt! The better capitalist companies get at maximizing profit, the less purchasing power workers have! Ever-increasing profit extracted from labour has to be offset with increased access to credit in order to maintain market equilibrium.
Why do you think it is that capitalism doesn't reduce working hours even though productivity levels continue to increase exponentially thanks to labor-saving technology? Because everything produced by workers belongs to someone else! Basically, workers are nothing more than human livestock. If a cow doubles its milk supply with growth hormone, it doesn't benefit the cow because all of that milk belongs to the farmer! That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours.
But if people actually own the product of their labour, the labor-saving technology would increase prosperity for everyone while decreasing working hours. Would probably only be working 10 hours a week by now..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tripleb308 , well I'm not familiar with any capitals companies where assembly line workers are making $35 an hour, even with a union. Those types of jobs usually pertain to heavy industry or car manufacturing plants, all of which have been replaced with automation. and besides, most of the Union's of the United States and Canada have been wiped out. Those that still exist have been rendered anemic.
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
another example is is the Ocean Spray company. they have about 2,000 employees and produce well over a billion dollars in sales annually. they are discussed this video here along with many other worker-owned companies. https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
there is Huawei, a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers.
There's Mondragon, they started off with five workers. Now there's a hundred and twenty thousand workers that own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Hospital, Etc. their research and development facilities are so Advanced they have contracts with Intel, Ford Motor Company and Microsoft.
there are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from democratic, worker-owned companies.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪︎ pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
▪︎ Here is an example of two employee-owned companies in the United States. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
▪︎ Here is Mondragon, a Federation of 120 companies, owned and run by the workers! 100,000 employees, 25 billion annual sales! They own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, factories, they even have their own social programs and safety-net! Those Research Laboratories are so advanced that Intel, Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company actually pays them to conduct research and solve problems on their behalf!
https://youtu.be/8ZoI0C1mPek
Mondragon through a critical lens https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049
▪︎ Maybe you could get together with your family and friends and start your own cooperative? 10 steps https://canada.coop/en/programs/co-op-development/how-start-co-op
1
-
1
-
1
-
Capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. What we have today, we have in spite of capitalism. The modicum of wealth that workers have came about as a result of the fight against capitalism. The eight hour day, five day work week, the right to collective bargaining, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Etc.
What we have today we owe to the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago and to the Scientific Revolution 500 years ago. Capitalism actually impedes progress in a lot of ways because science and scientific studies need to be funded by rich people, for the most part. A lot of new technologies can't be pursued because they would actually undercut current Investments and Free People from states of dependency. under capitalism polluting the water supply is a good thing, because it creates an opportunity to be exploited. we have sick and dying people, the GDP goes up because people have to pay for medicine and trips to the doctor
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
no, worker-owned companies are not capitalist. Capitalism is not merely selling the product of one's labour. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. Worker cooperatives are not capitalist because the company is owned collectively by the workers and the workers are running the company collectively and democratically. In order for the company to be capitalist, those workers would have to be utilizing wage labour for profit.
No, there is no conjecture. There are hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies in the United States and around the world. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. In the United States 60% of the country gets its electricity from worker-owned electrical cooperatives. Because there are so many cooperatives and because they've been around for so long, there's no shortage of data that shows us how they compared to capitalist Enterprises.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies.
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12% of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
@carljacobson7156 , Capitalist invention? So? How many things were invented under slavery, feudalism, fascism?
of course worker cooperatives are not capitalist. the workers are doing their own work. They're not utilizing wage labour for profit. Therefore it's not capitalist. Keep in mind that merely selling the product of one's labour is not capitalism. If you write a book and sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism.
of course what is produced is sold into the market. It doesn't matter what the mode of production is. Markets are not unique to capitalism.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital00mich
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles https://tinyurl.com/y6xqz7cw
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge. . ISBN 978-0415241878.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882
There are two key features that make an economy capitalist:
1. most production of goods and services is undertaken by privately owned companies, which produce and sell their output in hopes of making a profit. This is called production for profit.
2. Most work in the economy is performed by people who do not own their company or their output, but are hired by someone else to work in return for a money wage or salary. This is called wage labor.
An economy in which private, profit-seeking companies undertake most production, and in which wage earning employees do most of the work, is a capitalist economy. These twins features - profit-driven production and wage labor - create particular patterns and relationships, which in turn shaped the overall functioning of capitalism as a system.
Any economy driven by these two features - production for profit and wage labor - tends to replicate the following trends and patterns, over and over again:
- fierce competition between private companies for markets, sales, and profit.
- innovation, as companies constantly experiment with new technologies, new products, and new forms of organisation - in order to succeed in that competition.
- An inherent tendency to growth, resulting from the desire of each individual company to make more profit.
- Deep inequality between those who own successful companies, and the rest of society who do not own companies.
- A general conflict of interest between those who work for wages, and the employers who hire them.
- Economic cycles or roller coasters, with periods of strong growth followed by periods of stagnation or depression : sometimes these cycles even produce dramatic economic and social crisis.
Consequences:
• Total output produced by workers is immediately and automatically the property of the employers.
• Does not supply demand, only what people can afford. (E.g. Million people that need food VS a few rich people that want sports cars.)
• Has no means of separating the universal needs of human beings from junk commodities for the masses, or gold toilet-seats for the rich.
• Those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live.
• Dependence on extreme waste: "It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials." ~ http://www.jaunimieciai.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism.pdf
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined."
~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ECisvotersuppression , Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. People like that, people such as Obama, are not socialists. It looks like American terminology has you confused. Social programs and progressive taxation Doesn't have anything to do with socialism.
If you start your own business shoveling driveways for $100 each, You cannot provide yourself with a minimum wage. It doesn't make any sense. Minimum wage is something that workers fought and died for. Just like 8 hour day, the five-day Work Week, worker safety regulations, the right to organize, and all the other privileges That people seem to take for granted these days. Minimum wage is something that you beg for as a privilege when you're a wage slave. When you're a free person, and you're working for yourself, minimum wage has no relevance. That's why people are fighting for socialism. They're fighting for Freedom. They don't want to be enslaved anymore. Your comment makes no sense at all.
1
-
@ECisvotersuppression , You're still not making any sense. Who said anything about implementing socialism in America? The debate has nothing to do with implementing socialism in America. Who the hell cares about America? LOL 😀 the debate was about What is better for the economy and the community. Socially owned Enterprises or capitalist Enterprise. When you're dealing with socially owned Enterprises, you don't have to worry about production being moved to China. You don't have to worry about someone putting a gun to your head and threatening to cut your wages. You don't have to worry about Being forced to work in unsafe working conditions or forced to pollute your environment, Like what happened in Flint, Michigan Because some capitalist dictator is in control of your livelihood. Workers get paid the full value of their labour, which means their purchasing power is commensurate production output. Under the capitalist system workers are constantly producing more and more with each passing year, but getting paid less and less. So now the Federal Reserve has to pump billions of dollars into the economy at record low interest rates in order to keep the system afloat. LOL. Americans are in a lot of trouble. If you think things are bad now, you haven't seen anything yet!
I'm glad that you mentioned propaganda. You might want to study its history and development. Here's a good place to start.
The History of Propaganda from WW1 to Reagan.
• Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
• Part 2: http://youtu.be/QY8i4JXdpxs
• Part 3: http://youtu.be/fUOqrxrrY0k
• Part 4: http://youtu.be/ZQuPMRnInoY
• Part 5: http://youtu.be/ao0P7_P22BM
• Part 6: http://youtu.be/3433t89k4LY
Down load full version @
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/102354
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/102414
“The 20th century has been characterized by 3 developments of great political importance:
1. The growth of democracy,
2. The growth of corporate power, and
3. The growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” -- Alex Carey, Australian social scientist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Carey_(writer)
The history and development of social engineering in the 20th century http://metanoia-films.org/human-resources/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"There are major institutions that are specifically dedicated to undermining authentic democracy. One of them is called the public relations industry. A huge industry, it was in fact developed on the principle that it’s necessary to regiment the minds of men, much as an army regiments its soldiers."
~ https://chomsky.info/20130617/
1
-
@ECisvotersuppression , All we need to do is increase the number of democratic workplaces So that workers and communities are no longer dependant on corporations and billionaires when it comes to consumer goods and jobs. Of course when the billionaires own all the factories and capital, they're going to keep most of the wealth for themselves While paying workers as little as possible. But if workers are in control, the wealth stays with them and the community.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ECisvotersuppression , consider Vienna as an example. 80% of the population lives in public housing. The public wanted the government to use their tax dollars to fulfill the need of housing. People who utilize that housing now only have to worry about Paying for the initial cost of the building And it's maintenance. Unlike in the United States, people in Vienna don't have to give up most of their Pay checks to a landlord. Would you rather be putting money away for your own home or your own? Or would you rather Be paying for your landlord's lifestyle? That's what's happening when you work as an employee at a capitalist company. You work for 8 hours, but you don't get paid for 8 hours. You are funding a parasite. They are basically stealing hours of your life. You shouldn't have to rely on parasites for jobs and consumer goods. That's why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week And why 85% of the American population can no longer afford a family on a single income and why 44% of the American population makes $18,000 a year or less.
if someone came to you and said that Who should have an economic system where people with blue eyes Get to control 95% of the wealth, the market, well producing technology, housing, Jobs, the government Etc, Would you agree to that? Maybe, if you have blue eyes. And what if people with brown eyes We're supposed to do all the work for the least amount of money? If you had brown eyes, would you agree to that deal? Well, if you actually have to work for a living, If you don't have enough Capital where you can actually live without working, And you support the capitalist system, Well, that's like a black man supporting chattel slavery of the Antebellum South! It wouldn't make any sense. No intelligent individual is going to support a system where they have to do all the work and someone else gets all the money without having to do anything.
There are billionaires out there Accumulating 14 million dollars per hour just from their Capital Holdings. You do realize that it's not possible to convert Labor energy into that much wealth, Yes? Every time you have a dollar going to honour and wealth, somewhere else you have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. That's why we have so much poverty. Capitalism is an economic system of parasites. It's their system. Believing in that system is tantamount to believing in the tooth fairy or the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, that's what the ruling class would like you to believe. do you have any idea how much money they spend propagating that propaganda annually?
a few sources of funding:
1. Exxon Mobil , the world's largest oil company.
2. The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
3. Earhart Foundation = >>> the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Exxon, J.C. Penney, Chase Manhattan Bank, the American Enterprise Institute, which became a prominent source of ideas and people for the Reagan administration.
4. The Castle Rock Foundation, funding radically conservative organizations.
5. Altria Group, formerly Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco company. In the U.S. it controls about half of the tobacco market. It has 7 of the top 20 global cigarette brands. companies/ products include: Kraft Foods, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Maxwell House, etc.
6. The John M. Olin Foundation, The foundation closed after more than two decades of setting the stage for the NeoCon wave of the Reagan era. The Foundation gave $21 million to fund various right-wing think tanks including: Project for the New American Century (PNAC)!!! , Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Independent Women's Forum, which is an anti-feminist organization predominantly funded by right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch brothers' Claude R. Lambe Foundation. On its website, it describes its mission as being "to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hugokam7762 , that's not true. The core principle of socialism is workers owning and controlling their own Factory or means of production.
There are three main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc. without these regulations capitalism would collapse. this type of socialism is prominent in Canada, the United States, Etc.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises.
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
If we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
Traditional socialism / anarchism is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
1
-
Socialism is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because people get paid according to the contribution. They get the full value of their labour. If you produce $70,000 worth of product, you're now entitled to consume that much. But under capitalism, workers don't own the product of their labour. It doesn't matter if they produce $70,000 worth of product or 70 million. It All Belongs to someone else. That's why we're saving technology doesn't reduce working hours under the system. Capitalism drives wages down so low that most people have to work at least 40 hours a week in order to survive. The thing is, we no longer need to work that long in order to produce all the goods and services required by Society. We should have transitioned to a four hour work day a long time ago. But yeah, socialism is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because labor-saving technology reduces working hours while increasing prosperity for everyone. When the wealth is actually going to the workers instead of billionaires, those workers spend that money into the economy. That causes the economy to expand. But under capitalism the capitalists do everything they can to maximize profit by keeping wages as low as possible. That causes the market to contract. That's why they have to pump so much credit into the system. Capitalism is absolutely antithetic all to a free market. The market is only free for a very narrow portion of society. Most of the capital ends up being owned by the richest members. And they get most of the wealth produced by labour and they get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low. That's what we call a plutocracy. Plutocracies are not synonymous with Market freedom. Free markets require economic democracy. Capitalism is the exact opposite of economic democracy. Decision-making depends on how many shares you can afford. Therefore, someone like Bill Gates will always be able to out vote your average worker. And that's exactly what plutocracy means. Rule by money. That's why Adam Smith was anti-capitalist. He knew that the Invisible Hand of the market could only function properly in an economic environment.
1
-
@emptyvessel3054 , the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about is a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical system of organization. There is no one at the top with power over those underneath. That's why Richard Wolff is criticizing both state and capitalist systems of organization because they're both based on hierarchy. But when workers and communities own their own workplaces, then they have no need for government. Or very little government. Socialist companies are bottom-up and Democratic. Like this https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
I'm not sure why you don't think they would be an ally class if we had pure capitalism. Capitalism is like the Monopoly board game. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. Just the other day someone won 160 million dollars in the lottery.
That money is currently sitting in a bank account. He is getting 3% interest on that 60 million.
That comes to 1.8 million dollars a year.
That's $150,000 per month.
That's $35,000 per week.
that's $5,000 a day.
That's $200 an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year, for the rest of their life, until the day they die. and they will pass that privilege onto every child they have and every woman that they marry.
now let's look at Jeff Bezos. He has about 200 billion dollars now. So, hypothetically speaking, if he were to dump all of his Capital assets and just put that money into the bank account at 3% interest, he would be accumulating 6 billion dollars per year for doing absolutely nothing.
That's 500 million dollars a month.
That's a 115 million dollars per week.
That's 16 and 1/2 million dollars per day.
that's 685,000 per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
How long does it take you to use the washroom? Let's say it takes you 1 minute to take a dump. by the time Jeff Bezos takes a dump, he has an extra $12,000 in his bank account. 😃
where do you think that money comes from? Every dollar of that has to come from labour. Every time you take out a student loan, every time you buy toilet paper, a toothbrush, finance a house, a car, Etc. you have to pay some rich individual for that privilege. He gets to collect that amount of money without doing any work at all. And, unless he's actually capable of spending $600,000 an hour, with every passing hour, he'll be making more money than he did before.
But anyway, you're going to have concentrations of wealth and ownership under capitalism because when workers don't get paid the full value of their labour eventually consumption is going to slow. For example, a 50% of the wealth is going to owners instead of workers, the workers are only going to be able to afford 50% of what they produce. As soon as consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. They then have to compete with other unemployed workers and that drives the value of Labor down even further. So you end up with a situation where workers are producing more and more while rates of income are not keeping pace.
The only way to have equilibrium in the economy and Market is by making sure people get the full value of their labour. Purchasing power has to be balanced with production output. But if the workers get the full value of their labour, then there's no profit for the capitalists.
1
-
@emptyvessel3054 , well, statistically speaking, worker cooperatives are more stable, more productive, they're better for workers and communities, Etc. And statistically speaking, workers are happier, more productive, more creative, they take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of depression, suicide, substance abuse, their relationship with their families are better and more meaningful. The workers are more connected to their community and Neighbors. There's data going back almost a hundred years! So we know exactly how well we're coronavirus perform compared to capitalist companies. There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker and community-owned companies. Even in the United States almost 60% of the country gets its electricity from worker-owned Electrical Cooperative. There's videos on YouTube of those workers giving testimony to what it's like actually working for one's Community rather than some capitalist Pig.
But yeah, the data is endless. My actions are dictated by reason, evidence and logic. I like hard empirical data.
▪ Study number 1:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 2:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 3:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 4:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 5:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeñorSandalia , I could probably go on for days pointing out all of his lies.
Let's take a look at this one statement.
▪ says it's a myth that capitalism makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Now is he lying or is he stupid?
Under the capitalist system those were the most capital get most of the wealth produced by labor. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. There are billionaires out there making hundreds of thousands of dollars per second even while they're sleeping!
For example, there is a person who won the lottery last year where i live. he won 60 million dollars. That money is currently sitting in a bank account. He is getting 3% interest on that 60 million.
That comes to 1.8 million dollars a year.
That's $150,000 per month.
That's $35,000 per week.
that's $5,000 a day.
That's $200 an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year, for the rest of their life, until the day they die. and they will pass that privilege onto every child they have and every woman that they marry.
now let's look at Jeff Bezos. He has about 200 billion dollars now. So, hypothetically speaking, if he were to dump all of his Capital assets and just put that money into the bank account at 3% interest, he would be accumulating 6 billion dollars per year for doing absolutely nothing.
That's 500 million dollars a month.
That's a 115 million dollars per week.
That's 16 and 1/2 million dollars per day.
that's 685,000 per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
How long does it take you to use the washroom? Let's say it takes you 1 minute to take a dump. by the time Jeff Bezos takes a dump, he has an extra $12,000 in his bank account. 😃
where do you think that money comes from? Every dollar of that has to come from labour. Every time you take out a student loan, every time you buy toilet paper, a toothbrush, finance a house, a car, Etc. you have to pay some rich individual for that privilege. He gets to collect that amount of money without doing any work at all. And, unless he's actually capable of spending $600,000 an hour, with every passing hour, he'll be making more money than he did before.
Why do you think it is that most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income?
Under the capitalist system profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. And because we can produce more and more with less and less labor all the time, we have a steadily decreasing number of decent jobs with Benefits compared to the number of educated people needing jobs. The competition between unemployed people drives the value of Labor downward. Whoever gets the job is the one who has the most education, is willing to do the most work for the least amount of money.
And that ties in with his other false claim that capitalism is not inherently unstable. Of course it is! Why do you think there's an economic downturn every 4 to 7 years?
Again, profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. Now any person who has a basic understanding of economics, anyone that has taken economics 101, knows that one of the central goals is to achieve equilibrium between Supply and demand. So why is Thomas lying? How can you have equilibrium under capitalism when the goal is to maximize profit by paying workers as little as possible.? Literally, the more successful a capitalist company is at maximizing profits, the less purchasing power workers have. If 70% of the profit is going to a capitalist owner, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 30% of what they put into circulation. So inevitably consumption rates will slow down. When that happens people get laid off. When people get laid off they can't consume as much. That means more people get laid off. Capitalists are always waiting for a turn in the tide. As soon as the value of stocks start to decrease, they tried to sell them off. If you have too many people dumping their stocks, the whole system crashes. Smaller companies go bankrupt and are bought up by larger corporations for pennies on the dollar. And that brings us to a third lie of Mr thomas.
▪ Mergers and acquisitions have not concentrated economic and political power in fewer hands.
▪ Corporations don't earn obscene profits at the expense of consumers and workers.
Yeah, every time there's an economic downturn billionaires can buy up capital and property for pennies on the dollar.
Anyone who's taking economics knows:
competition -> winners -> competition between winners -> stronger winners -> .. -> bigger corporations -> etc
If you look at most of the products in the grocery store, most are owned and controlled by just a handful of companies. Bill Gates is now the largest owner of Farmland in the United states.
And that's one of the real reasons why the price of groceries are going up. If the inflation was actually caused by shortages, then corporations wouldn't be making massive record profits.
▪ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. At 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
1
-
1
-
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , yeah, I think I have a pretty good understanding of human nature. 😀
Yeah, some people don't want to own their own businesses. So what? And yeah, if you're hiring people why would you want to give them a say in your company? Nothing you've said makes any sense. What does it have to do with the argument? Also, statistically speaking, workers are a lot less stressed when they actually own the company and run it democratically. There's less stress, less mental illness, less substance abuse, workers are happier, more productive, they take fewer sick days, Etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , you're wrong when it comes to just about everything. You're constantly saying that worker exploitation never happens under capitalism. You say that workers are always paid the full value of their labour regardless of how much they're being paid. You sound like a raving lunatic. And, to embarrass yourself even further, you claimed to have a master's degree in accounting. Yeah, an accountant that doesn't know how to count or understand basic economics.
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@treyfannin8694 , dude, we're talking basic mathematics here. It's not hard to track with the money is going. Fact of the matter is the percentage of GDP going to workers has steadily been decreasing since 1950.
And I didn't say that rich people are the problem. The problem is that under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. That is just a simple fact. The more Capital you have, the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. However, if workers can obtain their own Capital, then they can keep all of the money that their labour produces. And they can own the product of their labour. worker cooperatives are good strategy because then workers can get together at afford things they normally wouldn't be able to individually.
And I don't expect you to believe anything I say. I expect you to be able to substantiate basic information. I expect you to be able to differentiate between facts, assertions and assumptions. That's what I expect. Never engage in faith-based or emotional based reasoning.
The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html
• starving Americans form one quarter mile-long line up at Food Bank https://trib.al/jSmp1t0
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/child-homelessness-highest-in-more-than-decade-feds-say/?platform=hootsuite
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪︎ 44% of fully employed people make $18,000 a year or less
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/21/low-wage-work-is-more-pervasive-than-you-think-and-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/
>>> https://therealnews.com/stories/employment-numbers-fully-employed-low-pay-no-security
▪︎ Low-Wage Jobs are the New American Normal.
Low-wage workers make up nearly half of the American workforce, and many of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
https://www.legalreader.com/low-wage-jobs-are-the-new-american-normal
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costs-administration/more-than-a-third-of-us-healthcare-costs-go-to-bureaucracy-idUSKBN1Z5261
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
1
-
@treyfannin8694 , well no, that's not true. A person's ability to generate income is not solely dependant upon their own effort. Environmental factors play a crucial role. For example, there are sections in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker cooperatives. In the United States it's only 1%.
In the United States there is a socially on the bread factory where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. Can an assembly line worker make that much money at a capitalist company? No. It's not possible. Why? Because when you work as an employee at a capitals company, you do not own the product of your labour. If you do not own the product of your labour, then you're basically nothing more than human livestock. Most of your time will be spent making money for other people.
The fact of the matter is that most of the high-paying jobs have been moved offshore. Now good paying jobs are becoming more and more scarce. However, the number of people seeking good jobs is steadily increasing. if you have a thousand people for every one decent job, then obviously everyone can't make a decent wage. It's mathematically impossible.
you see, billionaires can easily by railroads, electric companies, toilet paper manufacturing plants, Etc. Just like in the Monopoly board game.
but most workers cannot afford their own means of production. that puts them in a serious state of dependency. they have to sell their labour for a fraction of what it's worth to those who do own the means of production.
however, a person might be able to start their own business. another strategy would be to join a worker cooperative or to form a worker cooperative. collectively it's easier for people to purchase the tools and equipment they need. for example,
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carad2008 , the type of socialism that wolf is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the government.
in regards to government-owned Enterprises, there are many countries that have them. for example, in advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
but it's a moot point anyway because the debate is about worker-owned Enterprises, not state-owned Enterprises.
and if you want to know why there's no third world countries that have been able to convert to Pure socialism, well that's because of imperialism. for example,
just since 1945 the USA has:
• tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected;
• attempted to assassinate over 40 foreign leaders.
• grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries;
• bombed the civilian populations of over 30 countries;
• used chemical & biological weapons; https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/
USA #1 For STD's
S: subversion, sabotage,
T: terrorism, torture,
D: drug trafficking, death squads.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/
• Global capitalism - Rich Nations & poor Nations https://youtu.be/Q6WdUkaFyGw
• Humanity can be divided into 3 groups https://youtu.be/GEzOgpMWnVs
• School of the Americas death squads 1 & 2 https://youtu.be/HOeaG6-qsVc
- https://youtu.be/VW0k3v1RivA
• friendly dictators http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com/?m=1
• Samir Amin
https://youtu.be/CuYR-_tfWFw
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke , it works both on the macro and micro-level. Guarding the macro-level, look at the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union accomplished in twenty years what took the United States 200 years to accomplish. Anyone had guaranteed access to housing, Medical, Dental, education, employment, Etc. 100% literacy. The Soviet Union did it first. It's because of their accomplishments that Americans started demanding a 40-hour work week, a right to retirement, consumer safety standards, child labour laws, weekends, holidays, Etc.
And then look at the success of Collective ownership at the micro-level. There's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world that are massively successful. There's a bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make over $70,000 a year. Can assembly line worker make that much money at a capitalist company? No. Not even close. 😃 getting together collectively allows workers to be able to on their own means of production and the product of their labour.
1
-
@ExPwner , I said the Soviet Union was able to accomplish in 20 years what took the United States 200 years to accomplish. Pretty amazing considering that before the Russian Revolution they had something like a 98% the literacy rate. They had no modern tools. There was no electricity, indoor plumbing, Etc. And even while they were being attacked by Japan, England, the United States, Canada, Etc, they still made amazing accomplishments in record time. Again, they were able to do in twenty years what took American 200.
Soviet Union had the 2nd fastest growing economy of the 20th century ( Source: "From Farm to Factory" by Robert C. Allen)
Soviets had a higher (or in some studies around the same) per capita calories consumption compared to the Americans (Source: CIA's declassified reports & Data from Wheatcroft & Allen )
They indeed ended the centuries long cycle of famines in the region (Source: Read anything by Dr. Mark Tauger about the agricultural revolution in the SU)
Education was free and of very high quality. (Source: Report of official US education mission in the USSR (1959))
Soviets had the most doctors per capita in the world (Source: Health personnel in the Soviet Union: Achievements and Problems by Mark G. Field)
Soviets were the first to go into space and had many other firsts.
Soviet Union obviously wasn't able to end racial inequality or sexual inequality but they made great strides in both of them (Source: Human rights in the Soviet Union by Albert Szymanski)
Saved the world from Nazis (I mean, yeah obviously)
And the list goes on and on and on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dore 2024!
Yes, I know, it’s always premature to discuss the next presidential contest. But I’ll make my pick for 2024 known now: Jimmy Dore.
For those who dismiss a comedian running for the highest office, I say, why not? Dick Gregory ran for president in 1968 as a write-in candidate for the Freedom and Peace Party. The comedian and civil rights activist used his run to energize the anti-war movement, draw attention to the needs of the working class and the harassment many people of color still faced following the passage of numerous civil rights bills.
Gregory, although he only accumulated close to 50,000 votes, frightened the Nixon administration with his campaign. Personnel in the Nixon White House feared Gregory may become the “black messiah” J. Edgar Hoover long warned about. Shortly after that warning, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Fred Hampton were gunned down. Fearful of his profile and his building of a true rainbow coalition, Gregory was placed on Nixon’s dreaded enemies list.
I sincerely believe a Dore presidential campaign could have the same effect. It could empower various social movements and make the oligarchs and their two corporate/puppet parties quake in their boots. Dore could start the race with genuine grassroots support and funding from the people.
Dore has expressed both interest and some hesitancy. But if history is any guide, I say he shouldn’t be worried. Run, Jimmy! Scare the oligarchs and empower the people!
Dore 2024!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AbAb-th5qe ," so the ones who stand most to gain would have you believe." That makes absolutely no sense at all. If someone asks you to vote for them, if someone asks you to give them dictatorial powers, if someone asks you to remove checks and balances from your government, then that's moving in the opposite direction of communism. That's moving right to the right. I might as well be asking you to give me ownership of your possessions, promising you that I'm going to give you a million dollars or something. It doesn't matter what system of organization you're dealing with. If you get rid of checks and balances within the government, if you give someone dictatorial powers, then you're asking for problems. Communism doesn't have anything to do with dictators or giving people dictatorial power. That's absolutely ridiculous. Like what the hell are you talking about? Socialism is on the left side of the political spectrum. If you continue to move to the left, then you're moving toward communism. Eventually, in theory, you end up with a classless, stateless and moneyless society. If you move in the other direction, then you're moving away from socialism and communism. You end up on the right side of the political spectrum. If you continue to move to the right you end up with fascism. And of course I'm referring to the political Spectrum that evolved out of the seating arrangement in the French Parliament after the revolution. "Oli" means few. "Mono" means one. "archy" means rule. "An" means "not" or "without". Anarchy means without rulers. Anarchy does not mean dictatorship. They're polar opposites. That's why communism and anarchism overlap and are on the same side of the political spectrum. Fascism and it's advocates, they believe that human beings are not rational and cannot govern themselves. They need an all-powerful state to do it for them. Anarchists / Communists believe that people are rational and can govern themselves. That's the point! That's the main point of contention.
Here's an example of socialism at the micro level in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ the workers own their own means of production. They own the product of their labor. They're doing their own work. They're not utilizing other people's labor for profit, which would be capitalism. The workers have sovereignty. They are their own boss. They get all of the wealth that their labor produces. If most of the GDP were coming from worker-owned modes of production, then we would have a socialist economy. A capitalist economy is when most of the GDP comes from privately owned companies that utilize wage labor for profit. The workers do not have sovereignty and do not own the product of their labor. The workers and the community do not get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, etc. That's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest in 91% of the American population. Capitalism is freedom for the capitalist class. Markets are free for the capitalist class. And the more money you have, the Freer you are.
1
-
@AbAb-th5qe , ," so the ones who stand most to gain would have you believe." That makes absolutely no sense at all. If someone asks you to vote for them, if someone asks you to give them dictatorial powers, if someone asks you to remove checks and balances from your government, then that's moving in the opposite direction of communism. That's moving right to the right. I might as well be asking you to give me ownership of your possessions, promising you that I'm going to give you a million dollars or something. It doesn't matter what system of organization you're dealing with. If you get rid of checks and balances within the government, if you give someone dictatorial powers, then you're asking for problems. Communism doesn't have anything to do with dictators or giving people dictatorial power. That's absolutely ridiculous. Like what the hell are you talking about? Socialism is on the left side of the political spectrum. If you continue to move to the left, then you're moving toward communism. Eventually, in theory, you end up with a classless, stateless and moneyless society. If you move in the other direction, then you're moving away from socialism and communism. You end up on the right side of the political spectrum. If you continue to move to the right you end up with fascism. And of course I'm referring to the political Spectrum that evolved out of the seating arrangement in the French Parliament after the revolution. "Oli" means few. "Mono" means one. "archy" means rule. "An" means "not" or "without". Anarchy means without rulers. Anarchy does not mean dictatorship. They're polar opposites. Communism in anarchism overlap. That's why they're both on the left side of the political spectrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is economic democracy better than capitalism?
▪ study number 1:
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ Study number 2:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 3:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 4:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 5:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 6:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Capitalism is only about 275 years of age. Before then it was also hypothetical. Socialist experiments have always been under constant attack by the capitalist ruling class. Look at how many democracies they have overthrown just since 1945! If socialism didn't work, if it wasn't such a huge threat, they wouldn't need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually trying to prevent it from coming into existence.
Why did the United States fund the mujahdin and Taliban in Afghanistan back in the 70s?
In 1917 when the workers managed to overthrow the Czar in Russia, why did the United States get together with Canada, Britain, Japan, and France, sending troops into Russia to crush those poor illiterate farmers? They had nothing! Only the most simplest Farming tools. They couldn't read or write, they had no indoor plumbing, no electricity, nothing! The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922!
Gee, I wonder why we don't see any successful socialist experiments around the world. 😀 economic sanctions on Venezuela have resulted in at least a hundred thousand deaths. How long Cuba been under crippling sanctions?
Between 1945 and 1999 the USA has:
• tried to overthrow more than 50 governments;
• attempted to assassinate over 40 foreign leaders.
• grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries;
• bombed the civilian populations of over 30 countries;
• used chemical & biological weapons.
• supported and funded death squads that have murdered hundreds of thousands of Union organizers, children, women, Socialists, etc.
Not my opinion, a matter of public record. Just check out the National Security archive.
e.g. School of the Americas death squads
Pt 1 https://youtu.be/HOeaG6-qsVc
Pt 2- https://youtu.be/VW0k3v1RivA
Why would anyone prefer economic feudalism over economic democracy?
Worker-owned companies are tied to the community. So what would the consequence be? You have most things made in the home country rather than China and most of the wealth would be going to the workers who would spend that money into the economy. Trickle up instead of Trickle down.
But under capitalism most of the capital goes to the richest members of society. What is the consequence? Most of the wealth produced by labour goes to the richest 1% and you have most things being made in third world countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dore 2024!
Yes, I know, it’s always premature to discuss the next presidential contest. But I’ll make my pick for 2024 known now: Jimmy Dore.
For those who dismiss a comedian running for the highest office, I say, why not? Dick Gregory ran for president in 1968 as a write-in candidate for the Freedom and Peace Party. The comedian and civil rights activist used his run to energize the anti-war movement, draw attention to the needs of the working class and the harassment many people of color still faced following the passage of numerous civil rights bills.
Gregory, although he only accumulated close to 50,000 votes, frightened the Nixon administration with his campaign. Personnel in the Nixon White House feared Gregory may become the “black messiah” J. Edgar Hoover long warned about. Shortly after that warning, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Fred Hampton were gunned down. Fearful of his profile and his building of a true rainbow coalition, Gregory was placed on Nixon’s dreaded enemies list.
I sincerely believe a Dore presidential campaign could have the same effect. It could empower various social movements and make the oligarchs and their two corporate/puppet parties quake in their boots. Dore could start the race with genuine grassroots support and funding from the people.
Dore has expressed both interest and some hesitancy. But if history is any guide, I say he shouldn’t be worried. Run, Jimmy! Scare the oligarchs and empower the people!
Dore 2024!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are already hundreds of thousands of them. they work incredibly well. in fact, almost 60% of the USA gets its electricity from democratic workplaces.
There's a socially on bread factory in the United States where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. Can a an assembly line worker make that much at a capitalist company? Nope. Not even close. In fact, they'd be lucky if they could make slightly more than minimum wage. Do you know why? Because when you're an employee you do not own the product of your labour. So it doesn't matter how hard you work. It doesn't matter how fast you work. It doesn't matter how many loaves of bread you produce. Every loaf you produce belongs to someone else. So, basically, if you make a million dollars worth of bread, you've made someone else a million dollars.
So, if you don't want to lose many years of your life making money for other people, then you either have to start your own business, join your worker Cooperative, or start a worker cooperative. that way you can actually keep all of the money that your labour produces. if you don't actually own the product of your labour, then basically you're nothing more than human livestock. 😃
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." 😃
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pierrer5048 , No problem. my pleasure. here's some data that might also be helpful:
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
@pierrer5048 , There are 3 main types of ownership:
you have private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), and you have communism (no class, money or state). Communism comes from the word community. It works like this: https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
>>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans (create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Turvalon , yeah, and you can call yourself a meat eating vegan. Sure, there are lots of people that claim to be communist or socialist, people like Mussolini, that turned out to be fascist.
The left-right political spectrum is based on the seating arrangements in the French Parliament during the. Of the French Revolution. Those who sat on the right were in favour of monarchy and hierarchical systems of organization. Those who sat on the left were against monarchy and other hierarchical systems of organization.
They're socialists that fall within the anarchist Camp, the libertarian Camp, Etc. Those individuals don't believe in top-down hierarchical systems of organization. They want to decentralize power. They don't want to increase it. When you increase the number of democratic workplaces that are owned by communities and workers, that makes people less dependant upon the government and capitalist hierarchies. Those modes of production decentralised power. They don't increase it. It doesn't matter what socio-economic system you're in favour of. If you give unaccountable control to some individual, if you remove ticks and balances within your government, then you're asking for trouble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rbell38340 , capitalism is not about providing people with jobs or helping communities, or any such thing like that.. the point of capitalism is to extract wealth from labour. it's like when a beekeeper extract honey from beehives. He doesn't do that because he cares about bees. He doesn't do that because he wants the lives of the bees to be better and more fruitful.🙂 the point is to exploit the work of the honey bees. Likewise, that's why people get employees. The more employees you have, not the Richer you can become. The more bees hives you have, the more wealth you can extract from their labour. That is what capitalism is all about.
You don't need capitalism in order to own a business, have a market, have people producing things, have people selling and trading with one another, excetera. That existed long before capitalism. Capitalism is something totally different. Capitalism is what the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from Labour. Just like owning a beehive. So let's be clear on that.
and of course people are legally entitled to start their own businesses. But you can't say that everyone can start their own business, because that's simply not true. you see, a billionaire can just buy up hundreds of thousands of apartment complexes, electric companies, grocery stores, parking lots, Etc. that's why most of the wealth produced by Labour ends up going to a very small minority. You see, under capitalism the more Capital you have the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. That's why you end up with an extreme number of rich people at the top and a very large number of poor people at the bottom.
it's not easy for poor people or people that are in debt to start their own business. what Richard Wolff is pointing out is that it's easier when workers get together as a group in order to start a business. that's what his argument is. otherwise, if you can't start your own business, either individually or collectively, then you're going to have to fight for the best way that you can possibly get while making money and slaving away for someone else.
that's the argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rbell38340 , There are three main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, progressive taxation, social programs Etc.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
He's not suggesting that people give up their private businesses. In fact, if we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is referring to is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rbell38340 , Richard Wolff is not arguing in favour of government socialism.
In regards to State socialism, that would just mean that the government represents the people. Under capitalism the government represents the owning class, not the working class or average citizen.
You're painting with an awfully wide brush. what socialism would look like would largely depend on the culture and structure of the government. For example, socialism in Canada would be very different than it would be in the United States. you seem to be thinking in terms of black and white. obviously having a government that's controlled by the the actual citizens is going to be shaped by the needs and culture of those citizens.
But it's a moot point anyway because Richard Wolff is not talking about that type of socialism. there are three main types of socialism. One type is regulatory socialism. Progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, labour laws, Etc. you have to have price controls under capitalism, otherwise billionaires with the marking up the price on water and medication anytime there's a disaster and then hoarding other Commodities in order to drive up prices.
the second most common type of socialism is when the state owns companies and factories. State-owned Enterprises are common in countries such as Canada, United States, Etc. Not a big deal.
the third most common type of socialism is when workers directly own business or factory. that's the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about. we need enough Democratic workplaces in society some people are not so depended upon billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer good. otherwise, workers will have to compete with one another for jobs at private companies. Whoever is willing to do the most work for the least amount of money, that's going to be the person who gets the job. that's why wages are so low. the percentage of GDP going to workers is now so low that most people can no longer afford a family on a single income. most people are living from Check to Check and will continue to do so until the day they die. and as privatization / capitalism expands, things are only going to get worse. the percentage of GDP going to workers will continue to decrease while more of it goes to the billionaire class.
if wealth was actually staying with the workers in the first place, we could probably for the working class by more than half.
under capitalism, most of the wealth produced by labour goes to the owners of capital. Just like in the Monopoly board game. that's why we still have a 40-hour work week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. labor-saving technology only benefits the owners of capital. under socialism, that technology would serve to reduce working hours while increasing prosperity.
capitalism is economic feudalism. I think it's about time that we move Beyond types of feudalism. don't you?
1
-
@rbell38340 , dude, you're not making any sense. Richard Wolff is encouraging workers to start their own co-operatives if they find themselves underpaid, unemployed, in an intolerable situation with their current employer, Etc. Yes, you should always be cautious when someone is trying to sell you something. You have to ask yourself what their motive is. But Richard wolf doesn't have anything to gain from people starting cooperatives. you're not making any sense. there are doctors that go around like Richard Wolff lecturing on the advantages of eating fruits and vegetables. They have absolutely nothing to gain if you eat more broccoli. 😃 likewise, Richard wolf doesn't have anything to gain if you get together with a group of people and decide to run a company democratically.
and his argument is absolutely correct. worker cooperatives make workers and communities less dependant upon the government and billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. they keep wealth and control with the community. And that is more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. Capitalism erodes purchasing power and removes money from the community.
keep in mind that Richard Wolff is talking about WSDEs, not SOEs. Those are two distinctly different forms of socialism. and of course there's a third popular form of socialism involving regulations, progressive taxation, social programs, minimum wage laws, consumer safety standards, Etc.
I think you're getting your ideologies mixed up.
and what does nationalization have to do with anything? increasing the number of worker cooperatives is not going to give the government more power to nationalize companies. That doesn't make any sense.
And dude, when it comes to First World countries, the United States is pretty far down the list when it comes to the best countries to live in. Way down. in fact, if you want to live the American dream, you're better off moving to Norway or Denmark. social Mobility it has been virtually has been virtually non-existent since 1970. Real wages haven't increased since 1970. in fact, in the United States, the percentage of GDP going to workers has steadily been decreasing since 1950. most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income and are one paycheck away from financial disaster.
1
-
@rbell38340 , here, let me break it down for you so that it's less confusing.
There are 3 main types of ownership:
you have private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), and you have communism (no class, money or state). Communism comes from the word community. It works like this: https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
here is a very basic diagram that shows the difference between socialism and communism https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10163916901930618&id=544325617
Also there are 3 main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc. without these regulations capitalism would collapse. this type of socialism is prominent in Canada, the United States, Etc. Americans like to call it Democratic Socialist. in Europe they call it social democracy. Same thing, different name.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. (state-owned Enterprises). Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour.
a few examples,
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
Here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
If we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
Traditional socialism / anarchism is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy.
When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@termination9353 , how can workers owning and controlling their own labour and resources be wrong? If wealth actually stays with the wealth producers, they have more money to spend into the economy. That's how free markets work. But under capitalism the resources and wealth producing technology end up in the hands of the richest members of society. For example, your railroad, your electric company, your water supply, your rental apartments, Etc. That's why we have to work 40 hours a week. Everyone is poor because they have to pay rent and usage fees. This has resulted in a billionaire class well people can't even afford to go to the doctor.
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ 44% of US workforce aged 18-64 makes less than $16 per hour!
30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
■ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
■ "A lot of people, a little over 60%, are filing bankruptcy at least in part because of medical bills. Most of them are insured. It’s clear that despite health insurance, there are many, many people incurring costs not being covered by their insurance" ~ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insurance-medical-bankruptcy-debt
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
▪80% of the population lives on less than $10 a day!
▪50% of the population lives on less than $2.50 a day!
▪The bottom third, more than a billion people, live on a 1.25 a day!
▪ one child dies every 15 seconds from starvation.
▪ 30,000 people die per day from starvation and malnutrition.
▪ 1.2 billion tons of food is thrown away annually in order to maintain prices.
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
@termination9353 , that's not true. It was the fight against capitalism that gave us a modicum of prosperity that we have today. Before the fight against capitalism we had children working 16 hours a day, people dying from contaminated food and water, Etc. I would recommend reading a people's History of the United States and the works of Noam Chomsky
The conservative refrain goes something like this: If only things were left to the free market and we liberated ourselves from government's meddlesome regulations, then we would see how beautifully a pure capitalism works.
"In fact, we did practice something close to a pure capitalism in 1893. The result was economic depression and widespread unemployment, nine-year-old children working fourteen-hour days, typhoid and cholera epidemics in Philadelphia and other eastern cities, malnutrition and tuberculosis, and contaminated water and food supplies for the poor.
We had uninhibited environmental devastation and horrible work conditions, no pension programs or minimum wage, no occupational or consumer safety regulations, no prohibitions against child labor, and no Social Security, collective bargaining, or industrial unionism. We had unrestrained monopolies and trusts – and enormously high profits.
Conditions in the United States in 1893 were not unlike what they are today through much of the Third World. But for the capitalists of that era, these dismal conditions were not seen as evidence of the system's failure. For them, capitalism in the good old days was working quite well. Success was measured not by the quality of food, drinking water, housing, schools, transportation, and health care, but by the rate of capital accumulation.
The function of capitalism then and now has been to invest capital in order to accumulate more capital, and in that sense the system has performed superbly, for those who own and control it.
Today, the conservative goal is the Third Worldization of America, to reduce the U.S. working populace to a Third World condition, having people work harder and harder for less and less. This includes a return to the "free market,” free of environmental regulations, free of consumer protections, minimum wages, occupational safety, and labor unions, a market crowded with underemployed labor, so better to depress wages and widen profit margins.
Conservatives also seek the abolition of human services and other forms of public assistance that give people some buffer against free-market forces. Underemployment is a necessary condition for Third Worldization. Alan Budd, professor of economics at the London Business School candidly observed (Observer, June 21, 1992) that the Thatcher government's cuts in public spending were a cover to bash workers: ”Raising unemployment was a very desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. What was engineered – in Marxist terms – was a crisis in capitalism, which recreated a reserve army of labor, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.” With underemployment and poverty come the return of turbeculosis, homelessness, and hunger, and a sharp increase in the number of people who work at nonunion, low-paying, dead-end poverty-level jobs." ~
Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@entropino9928 , also, statistically speaking, the more democratic accompany is, the happier workers are. The workers are also more creative, more efficient, there's less incidents of mental illness, substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, etc. Here's a billionaire that explains what happens when he actually converted his workplace into a democracy.
https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE also, if we had an economic democracy, then most things we made at home instead of china. And instead of the richest 1% having almost as much wealth as the poor is 91% of the American population resulting in most Americans no longer being able to afford a family on a single income, we would have most of the wealth going to the workers would spend that money into the economy creating more demand. On top of that, labor-saving Technology would serve to reduce working hours while increasing income. But a capitalist companies labor receiving technology leads to layoffs and Market saturation. The maximization of profit reduces purchasing power which causes the economy to shrink because it decreases demand. When people get laid off, they can't consume. That results in more people being laid off.
1
-
1
-
Capitalism is dependant upon consumption. When consumption slows, unemployment expands and the market contracts. One persons expenditure is another person's paycheck. It's a consumption-based system. Corporations spend billions of dollars on Advertising every year in order to get people to buy crap that they don't need. They have people believing that they're imperfect, inadequate, Etc. They've invested billions to develop high-tech propaganda to maximize invidious consumption, conspicuous consumption, planned obsolescence, perceived obsolescence, Etc. The list goes on and on. Capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised.
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does
not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step
of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
Digby J. McLaren, ‘Reply to Colin Rowat’, Delta Newsletter of the Global Change Programme (Royal Society of Canada) Vol. 7: No. 3 (1996), 3; and Ernst Weizzsacker, Factor Four. London: Earthscan Books, 1997.
~ https://scienceforpeace.ca/action-and-understanding
~ http://www.jaunimieciai.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism.pdf
~ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03058298980270020228
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
John McMurtry
Part 1 https://youtu.be/b4JsCEYpIUA
part 2 https://youtu.be/DvbhzMFWLk0
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davewade30 , for example,
1. you completely ignore how many times Jordan Peterson has been caught lying. Even after he was caught lying and challenged on it, he continue to lie!
2. Mr. Peterson has gone out of his way to stop Bill C 16 which would greatly harm and probably lead to the continued deaths of many gay and transgender people. Does mr. Peterson care? Well, he continue to stop the bill even though he was corrected on the nature and limitations of that bill. That is a fact. Not my personal opinion. Why would he do such a thing? What is his motive?
3. Mr. Peterson makes spurious and fallacious claims. He does this constantly! For example, saying that it's not possible to stop smoking without Supernatural intervention. You tried to defend that point, saying people just misunderstand. You're grasping at straws! He outright said that it's not possible. any person with half a clue would have said that Supernatural intervention would greatly improve one's odds of stopping smoking. That would be the natural response. But he didn't say that, did he? No. He said it's not possible! When the interviewer then expressed extreme incredulity, Peterson said, not really. the fact that you would actually try to defend mr. Peterson on this point is absolutely ridiculous! I could probably bring up another 30 or 40 examples of this type of behaviour. but you would just make excuses, as Peterson often does, claiming that people are just simply misunderstanding him. Again, there has to be some motive for you to actually try to defend untenable positions.
4. Jordan Peterson to this very day continues to claim that Marxist will not debate him! but you'll never see him debating mr. Richard Wolff, because Peterson has made so many false claims, stating them as truth , that he now has no choice other than to avoid mr. Wolf. Peterson doesn't understand Marxism. he made numerous claims as to know what marks was talking in various areas. He was dead wrong on most of them! simple things that even a child should have been able to grasp. now these statements are on the internet and Peterson has to run like a child. :-) just like with that idiotic claim as to thinking that ancient civilizations had knowledge of DNA. there's actually another video where he was challenged on that statement. a person went up to him and said he could make such a claim. Peterson at first try to deny it! see, more evidence of the type of lying sack of that he is. when the person pointed out that he actually attended the class where he made the claim, Peterson then backtracked and said that wasn't what he meant. he said it was just a mere suspicion. LOL
anyway, I could go on and on and on, probably for hours. the man is a joke. it should be obvious to you. it's not too hard to substantiate. but you're not able to for some reason. I find that interesting. I find it interesting that there's so many people that are taken in by snake oil salesman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The type of socialism Richard Wolff is talking about makes people independent of the state. When workers own and control their own Capital, then they get all of the wealth produced by their labour. They spend that money into the economy. That causes the economy to expand. When rich people own the capital then they get most of the wealth produced by the workers. They spend that money on going to space, paying for propagandist, buying politicians, paying for lobbyists, paying for lawyers to hide money in offshore accounts, buy more Capital such as parking lots of hospitals, electric companies, grocery stores, railroads, water treatment plants, Etc. That way when anyone needs something they have to pay rich people and extortion fee to get access. If you have to pay an extra $10 to Bill Gates to get your blood tested, that's 10 less dollars you have to spend into the economy buying goods and services from your fellow workers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course capitalism is the problem. Capitalism gives a small minority extreme power over the majority. Anytime you have that type of situation you're going to have corruption, greed, exploitation, Etc.
Under capitalism the richest members of society own most of the capital. Those who own the capital get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why wages are so low and why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the population.
The capitals company the boss gets to decide when you work, how hard you work, what you can wear, when you get to eat, whether or not you get a coffee break. They can't even decide when and how long you get to go to the washroom. The boss wants to replace you with one of his family members or his new girlfriend, he can do it. If you worked your ass off for years and he wants to give a raise and bonus to the newest worker just because he's his best friend, he can do it.
If you think greed and Corruption is a problem, then you definitely don't want an economic system that gives the richest members of society extreme control over other people and resources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , of course capitalism allows the richest members of society own most of the capital. How could you not know this? 😃 what do you think capitalism is all about? It's about the maximization of capital accumulation. Why do you think it is that Bill Gates bought up as much of the Canadian Railway system as he could? Why do you think Bill Gates is the largest owner of Farmland in the United States?
Something like 86% of world stocks are owned by the richest 1%.
If you have an auction, if you privatize resources, who's going to be able to afford to buy the most? Those with the most money!
Why do you think it is the people like Bill Gates push for privatization in countries such as Canada, Russia, and everywhere else in the world?
You claim to have a master's degree in economics but yet it appears that you don't even have a great 12 education. It's not too hard to track where most of the money is going. There's a reason why the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the population.
And I love how you're not even aware that capitalism causes inflation. Yeah, in the apartment building that I live in the landlord has doubled the rent over the last three years. At the grocery store I go to the owner increase the price of olive oil from $10 to $20. Then after seeing how much he could sell at that price, he reduced it to $15 a bottle calling it up price rollback. 😀 but yeah, you're correct. Capitalism doesn't increase prices. One of my good friends had to shut down or coffee shop when the landlord increase rent from ten to fifteen thousand a month. But no, that's not an example of inflation. Not at all. You ignorant uneducated twit.
"A significant portion of the wealth is owned and controlled by the richest 1% of the population. Income and wealth inequality in the United States have increased over the past few decades, with a disproportionate share of the country's wealth concentrated among a small percentage of individuals and families. This has been a subject of considerable debate and concern."
"The information about income and wealth inequality in the United States, specifically the concentration of wealth among the richest 1% of the population, is well-documented and widely discussed in various reputable sources:
1. Academic Journals: Economic and sociological journals publish research on income and wealth inequality. Notable journals include the American Economic Review, Journal of Economic Inequality, and Social Forces, etc.
2. Government Agencies: Reports and data from agencies like the U.S. Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Federal Reserve are valuable sources of information on income and wealth distribution.
3. Organizations such as the Pew Research Center, the Brookings Institution, and the Economic Policy Institute conduct and publish research on income inequality and related topics.
4. Text Books: Many books by economists, sociologists, and other experts delve into the topic of income and wealth inequality. Notable authors include Thomas Piketty ("Capital in the Twenty-First Century") and Joseph Stiglitz ("The Price of Inequality").
5. Reputable news organizations, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist, often report on and analyze income and wealth inequality using data from various sources."
1
-
1
-
1
-
What makes you think socialism has anything to do with conformity? That doesn't make any sense at all.
There are three main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises.
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
if we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
traditional socialism is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
@harambe2552 , yes, when the state is in control of capital you can refer to it as either State capitalism or state socialism. But like I already pointed out, that's only one type of socialism. The traditional type of socialism, the kind that basically synonymous with anarchism, is when workers directly own their own Factory or business. Noam Chomsky has written extensively on this topic. The idea of worker ownership goes back to the time of the Enlightenment. Indirect ownership through the government, that came at a later date.
capitalism is not compatible with democracy. There's no such thing as a capitalist democracy. Capitalism is extremely anti-democratic. Under capitalism most of the capitals owned by the richest members of society. Therefore not only do they get most of the money produced by Labour, they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. It's a plutocracy. Decision-making depends on how many shares you can afford. Rule by money. That's about as anti-democratic as you can possibly get.
Socialism, on the other hand, is the very epitome of democracy. One worker equals one vote. the workers get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
that's simply not true. The vast majority of Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Their living from check to check.
thanks to socialists Americans aren't making $10 a day like some third world countries. Thanks to socialists we have the 8 hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, the right to unionize, child labour laws, Etc. Before so many socialist fought and died resisting capitalism there were 9 year old children working 16 hours a day. Back in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan, one in 11 workers would die from exhaustion. Thousands would die everyday from unsafe working conditions and a lack of consumer safety standards. People like JPMorgan would hire private police to shoot anyone who tried to organize.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41;30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke , Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , here's an example of real moronic nonsense 😃
James Adams, top quotes....
▪ James adams: "Profits don't cause inflation you moron. How can you possibly be this economically illiterate? Prices are not set by profits. They are set by Supply and demand! This is econ 101."
Doesn't have a clue how increasing prices also increases profits. Doesn't understand that when prices rise faster than wages, we are actually earning less money. And that means we're getting poorer under capitalism. Inflation has been increasing faster than wages for a very long time now. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible and charging as much as possible for goods and services. Corporations are now making record profits because they are increasing prices as much as they can.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam." Yeah, sure, capitalism doesn't create a working class/ owning class dichotomy where a very small minority of wealthy people own most of the capital on the planet, which enables them to get most of the wealth produced by labor. It also gives them the power to have most of the production in countries such as china.
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
Yeah, capitalism doesn't cause any quality. We only have a situation where the richest 1%, now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. 😀
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality." Yeah, you're right. Americans are number one for depression because they have so much freedom. 😀
>>>> USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
>>>> Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~ cdc g o v sheet
>>>> The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation. ~ The Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
>>>> 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut. ~ Time Magazine
No, that wouldn't cause people to be depressed.
You see, that's why social mobility in the United States is so low! Rather than more people getting access to critical Services over time, services are being cut! You don't even know how social Mobility works. Nimrod.
▪ James Adams regarding the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility." How do you think social Mobility is calculated? It's based on a person's ability to access those basic services.
>>>>> The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania!
1
-
@ExPwner , I don't cite any examples for capitalism causing depression? Yeah, I did. I cited numerous reputable. Viewed sources on studies that show how capitalism causes unemployment and poverty. When people get laid off, incidence of depression, substance abuse, mental disorders, all of these things increase and number. Along with crime and even domestic abuse.
Just to give one example calma
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , you don't know how capitalism cause unemployment? 😃 yes, I've given you probably hundreds of citations by now. But even someone such as yourself should understand how and why capitalism cause unemployment. Just to give one quick example, if a market is saturated with a particular product and labor-saving Technologies introduced which doubles production with half the amount of Labor, what happens to those employees? They get laid off!
Also, workers have to produce more value than they actually get paid for. Basically, employees have to bake a loaf in order to afford to slice. Hypothetically, if workers only get 50% of the wealth on the goods and services they produce, then where do they get the purchasing power to consume the other 50%? Where does that purchasing power come from? So, it's only a matter of time before consumption slows down. If consumption slows down, people get laid off. Laid off people can't consume.
How many high-paying jobs with Benefits were lost when regulations were removed allowing corporations to move production to third world countries?
I could go on all day giving examples.
Maybe you need a citation as proof that most of our products are made in countries such as China? lol 😃
And you actually claimed to have a master's degree in accounting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sinfulyetsaved , it has absolutely nothing to do with faith. What it has to do with is hard empirical data. There's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies and factories in the United States and around the world. We have data going back over 100 years. Of course workers can operate their own factories and companies. Yes, certain people are better at doing certain things, because they have different skill levels, different talents, and different levels of Education. But that's not an argument against worker ownership. Statistically speaking, where coronavirus has are more productive, more stable, more durable, and much much better for the workers, the community and the economy.
There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker-owned companies. So yes, of course workers can own their own companies and factories. Of course we can have an economic democracy. No we do not need to be depended upon capitalism in order to have modes of production, markets, people selling things in trading with one another. Markets and people selling the product of their labour, that has been going on for thousands of years before capitalism ever came into existence. Capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from other people's labour. At socialist companies people are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. That's called being a parasite. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. It's about owning for living rather than working for a living. You see, under capitalism you can accumulate billions of dollars because you're extracting wealth from other people's labour. You can accumulate a billion dollars by using your own labour because you can't convert your labour energy into that much wealth. It's not possible. It doesn't matter what kind of labor-saving Technology you use or how much education or talent you have. People should only be entitled to the wealth they work for. Living off of other people's labour is being a parasite and it's immoral.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies.
▪ Study number 5:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
~ workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people.
1
-
@sinfulyetsaved , and no, bottom-up systems of organization are not prone to corruption the way top down systems are. Capitalism is prone to corruption because those are the top has power over those underneath. If the boss wants to replace you with his best friend or his Lover, he could do so. The boss can use his power to blackmail the workers by threatening to move production to a different location. Why do you think it's so hard to form a union these days? A capitalist company is basically a dictatorship. So yeah, when you have that kind of power, corruption is almost guaranteed. Abuse is almost guaranteed. And because a lot of the factories are owned by capitalists but don't even live in the same state, often not even in the same country, they don't care about destroying the environment. They can get away with abusing people.
But when it comes to socialist companies, the consumers and the workers are the owners! So no, can't be greedy. You can't be corrupt. You can't make deals behind closed doors. Look at Volkswagen. They were able to rip off their customers because a small group of people behind closed doors and secrecy were able to program the computers in their vehicles to give false readings in regards to pollution. But you can't do that at a socialist company because everybody has access to all the information and proceedings taking place. And obviously you're not going to pollute your water supply. Obviously you're not going to poison your own children. Can't get away with being greedy.
For example, here is a worker at a socially owned robotics Factory in the United States explaining why you can't be greedy in such an environment. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoubleBob , I never noticed wolf evading any questions at all. So your accusations are subjective and based purely on assumption. That's not much of an argument.
Yes, people are allowed to start a business, either collectively or individually. What does that have to do with the argument? Your statement doesn't make any sense. What a weird thing to say. Imagine having a debate about what type of engine is better: the electrical engine or a combustion engine. Telling someone to go and buy the engine they think is best, that's not an argument. 😃
And what do you mean collectively owned companies are not efficient? That's simply not true. Not only are worker-owned companies more efficient, more durable, more productive, they're also much better for workers. Workers are happier, more efficient, more creative, they take fewer sick days, Etc.
There are hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies around the world. Some of those companies are massive! For example, there's a massive electronics company in China owned by its workers. Mondragon is another example. Over 100 thousand workers own their own bank, Hospital, University, high-tech Research Laboratories, they even have their own social programs! The research and development labs are so Advanced they handle contracts with Microsoft, Intel and the Ford Motor Company, just to name a few.
There is a region in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker and community-owned cooperatives. Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from worker-owned Electrical Cooperative.
So there's no shortage of data to go buy. There's data going back almost a hundred years. We know exactly how well worker-owned Enterprises compare to capitalist Enterprises. And again, they're better for workers, they're better for the economy, there's better for the environment, and the list goes on.
▪ Study number 1:
The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪ Study number 2:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 3:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 4:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 5:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace .pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass. electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
▪ "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
▪ Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@DoubleBob , oh, I forgot to address your comment regarding Richard Wolff being dishonest. No, he's not being dishonest. He very clearly and concisely explains the different types of socialism and which one he advocates for. He doesn't consider social democracy and state socialism to be legitimate forms of socialism. He's very clear about that.
There are 3 main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc. without these regulations capitalism would collapse. this type of socialism is prominent in Canada, the United States, Etc. in Europe they refer to it as a social democracy. In the USA they refer to it as Democratic socialism. The exact same thing, different label.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises. these are public
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour.
So no, Richard Wolff is not being dishonest. Here is a very basic summary of Richard Wolf's argument. This is what Richard Wolff is a talking about. https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
1
-
@DoubleBob , dude, why are you mentioning Stalin, Pol Pot, Etc? Richard Wolff already explained in the debate that the problem with hierarchical systems of organization is that you have the potential for corruption. Obviously if you have people with power at the top to have control over those underneath, then there is the potential for abuse. That's why people like Richard Wolff, Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, they advocate for a non-hierarchical system of socialism. Do you understand?
Blaming socialism for the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, that's like blaming Jesus Christ for the crimes of the Catholic church when they molested children and burned women at the stake.
I already explained to you that socialism is about worker ownership. It doesn't make any sense the call it evil. There's nothing wrong with workers and communities owning their own factories, tools, resources, businesses, Etc. You calling that evil simply doesn't make any sense.
Not too difficult to learn about the history of traditional socialism. "Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Dude, it doesn't matter if you're dealing with capitalism or socialism. You give a person dictatorial Powers, if you remove the checks and balances in your government, then you're asking for trouble. Saudi Arabia is capitalist. I certainly wouldn't want to live there! Even when you're dealing with State socialism the system can be either more or less Democratic depending on how the government is structured. It doesn't make any sense to call socialism evil. That's just weird. There's nothing wrong with people owning their own resources and tools and getting to keep the wealth that they actually produce with their labour. Why do you think the capitalist ruling class produces billions of dollars worth of propaganda annually? Why do you think they have so many right-wing think tanks funded by billionaires connected to the oil and banking industry? The capitalist class wants to own and control the resources and capital for the same reason that the workers do. Because whoever controls the capital gets most of the wealth from labour. Again, obviously workers should get most of the wealth produced by their labour, not someone else.
1
-
@DoubleBob , And in regards to propaganda, why do you think the ruling class spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually producing it? Cui Bono? Have you studied and researched the history of propaganda? It's all right there in the public record. All you got to do is take time to look and study. There are many social scientists that have researched the topic. You can learn from their work. For example, the work of Alex Carey:
“The 20th century has been characterized by 3 developments of great political importance:
1. The growth of democracy,
2. The growth of corporate power, and
3. The growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” -- Alex Carey, Australian social scientist.
If you don't want to take the time to read through the documentation or Publications in sociology journals, then there are audio recordings available online. Just to give one example, Part 1of 6: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
And who do you think is behind that propaganda? Where do you think they get their funding?
Just to name a few sources of funding:
1. Exxon Mobil , the world's largest oil company.
2. The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
3. Earhart Foundation = >>> the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Exxon, J.C. Penney, Chase Manhattan Bank, the American Enterprise Institute, which became a prominent source of ideas and people for the Reagan administration.
4. The Castle Rock Foundation, funding radically conservative organizations.
5. Altria Group, formerly Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco company. In the U.S. it controls about half of the tobacco market. It has 7 of the top 20 global cigarette brands. companies/ products include: Kraft Foods, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Maxwell House, etc.
6. The John M. Olin Foundation, The foundation closed after more than two decades of setting the stage for the NeoCon wave of the Reagan era. The Foundation gave $21 million to fund various right-wing think tanks including: Project for the New American Century (PNAC)!!! , Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Independent Women's Forum, which is an anti-feminist organization predominantly funded by right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch brothers' Claude R. Lambe Foundation. On its website, it describes its mission as being "to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoubleBob , no, that's not correct. Traditional socialism is not about concentrations of state power. State socialism is a concept that came later in history. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. There's two hundred years worth of literature. So why are you talking about a subject you obviously haven't studied? The core concept of socialism is worker ownership. That concept goes right back to the time of the Enlightenment.
The concept of State socialism game later in history, that's why if you look at the definition of socialism in the encyclopedia you'll notice that it can either be government or Collective ownership. That Collective ownership can either be by the community or by the workers directly. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.
1. "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• "Socialism is an economic and political system. It is an economic theory of social organization. It states that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the workers. This means the money made belongs to the workers who make the products, instead of groups of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists." ~
Durlauf, Steven N.; E. Blume, Lawrence. "socialism". DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS. Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
• "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital00mich
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge. . ISBN 978-0415241878.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
socialism has not failed. There are hundreds of thousands of socially owned companies and factories in the United States and around the world. They provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers compared to capitalist Enterprises. There are more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. If you do not own the product of your labour, then you're nothing more than human livestock.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrAnonymous1515 , you just make one assumption after another. You have no way of knowing what he's thinking. You're not a mind reader. 😀 if you want to know about Wolff, do some research.
In regard to worker cooperatives, yeah, he's absolutely right. Socially owned companies provide more freedom, prosperity and equality. When you work at a democratic workplace, you get to keep all of the money that your labour produces and you are your own boss. When you work as an employee at a capitals company, the boss can tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom. They can fire you and hire their best friend if they want. If you try to get a raise, they can threaten you with layoffs or moving production offshore. Worker cooperatives don't have any of those problems.
Can the assembly line worker makes $70,000 a year at a capitalist company? No. They get paid minimum wage oh, maybe a few dollars more if they're lucky. That's because they don't own the product of their labour.
All of his arguments are very simple and straightforward. They're based on reality and facts. you're assuming what he's thinking and feeling, that's not an argument against anything he sent. That is just purely speculation on your part and you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for your assumptions. 😀
1
-
1
-
@MrAnonymous1515 you're assuming that I'm feeling sorry for myself? What do I have to feel sorry for? I own my own business. I haven't had to work for anyone for years. I feel Sorry for those people that do.
anyway, I'll Richard Wolff is doing is pointing out that if you don't like working for a boss, if you don't like losing years of your life making money for other people, if you want to keep all of the money that your labour produces, then you can either open up your own business, join a Cooperative, or form your own cooperative.
I don't know why you're talking about fantasies. Almost 60% of the United States is powered by such workplaces. Some worker cooperatives have over a hundred thousand employees that own their own bank, means of production, Hi-Tech Research Laboratories, hospitals, University Etc. here's a socially owned u.s. company that builds robots brother businesses. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
worldwide, these companies produce trillions of dollars worth of Revenue and employ millions of people. all Richard Wolff is doing is spreading awareness about these alternatives. That's all. he doesn't deal in fantasies. everything that he says it's backed up by hard empirical data and real life examples.
1
-
1
-
@MrAnonymous1515 , Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sinfulyetsaved , what do you mean my comments don't make any sense? I already cited five empirical studies. Do you need more citations?
Or would you prefer to talk about Jesus and God?
Capitalism is inherently immoral and incompatible with Christian values.
▪ Jesus: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:23).
▪ "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves!"
~ (Matthew 21:12).
▪ “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest."
~ Psalm 15:5
▪ “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit."
~ Proverbs 22:7
▪ "Lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself."
~ Luke 6:34-35
▪ "And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil."
~ Luke 6:35
▪ Jesus: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
~ (Matthew 19:23).
▪ "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve both God and wealth."
~ (Matthew 6:24).
1
-
@sinfulyetsaved , if you don't think my comments make sense, then I can only assume that you don't ask you understand what socialism is or its history and evolution.
Socialism is about economic democracy. It's about workers and communities controlling their own resources and means of production. That doesn't make sense to you?
▪ Socialism:
1. "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
~ Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• "Socialism is an economic and political system. It is an economic theory of social organization. It states that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the workers. This means the money made belongs to the workers who make the products, instead of groups of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists." ~
Durlauf, Steven N.; E. Blume, Lawrence. "socialism". DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS. Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
• "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity."
~ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. Socialism: "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital."
▪ "Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production."
1
-
1
-
@red.samurai , what makes you think socialists want an equal share of your business? Where did you ever get an idea like that from? And to say that socialists are like fascists, that doesn't make any sense at all. Fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political Spectrum. Do you know why Hitler killed so many socialists And communists? You might as well be saying that black people are KKK members at heart. Just doesn't make any sense.
socialism is about workers owning and controlling their own means of production and doing their own work. Democratic worker cooperatives make communities and workers less dependant upon government and billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. So no, it makes no sense but you wouldn't support Richard Wolff and his position.
for example, in the United States there is a socially own bread factory where assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 per year. Can an assembly line worker make that much money at a capitalist company? No. Why? Because we do not own the product of their labour. It doesn't matter how hard they work. It doesn't matter how fast they work. It doesn't matter how many loaves of bread they produce. Every loaf of bread they produce belongs to someone else. if they produce a million dollars worth of bread, they've basically made someone else a million dollars.
so what Richard Wolff is recommending is that workers get together and form their own cooperatives. You see, billionaires can buy grocery stores, apartment complexes, and bread factory is like the rest of us can buy bubble gum. the average individual cannot afford a multimillion-dollar factory. but when workers get together then it makes it easier for them to purchase or build their own companies or factories. that way, when they produce a million dollars worth of bread, they've basically made themselves a million dollars.
worker cooperatives keep more wealth and control with the workers and communities. They make them less depended upon billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. And that is more conducive to a free market in thriving economy because when workers have more money they can spend more. Jobs are tied to consumption. capitalism erodes purchasing power. if 75% of the wealth from the bread production ends up going to billionaire shareholders, how are the workers going to be able to afford the bread they actually create? what do you think would happen if you spent $500 every time you earned 50? likewise, if workers are constantly producing more goods and services than they can actually afford, how can you expect consumption not too slow? if consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a downward spiral. That's why capitalism is dependant upon debt. that keeps the system running for a while, but ultimately the interest attach will serve to erode purchasing power even further in the long run. when the credit Runs Out, consumption slows and the whole system comes crashing down. The trick is to dump your stocks before the downward Trend starts. It's like a game of musical chairs. and then the capitals can buy up houses, and everything else at Pennies on the dollar.
1
-
@red.samurai , Hitler was not a socialist. Where did you ever get an idea like that?
Yes, it's true that "socialist" was used in the party name, but that was just to attract more votes from the working class. You should know that fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political Spectrum.
fascists and Hitler hate socialists and communists almost as much as they hate Jewish people. The ideologies are in complete conflict with one another. That's why Hitler had hundreds of thousands of communist and socialist rounded up and killed. I can reference several textbooks if you're interested in examining that history. I might even be able to find a few of them in PDF format.
and what do you mean coops only work in a capitalist environment? I'm not sure where you got that idea from either. A capitalist economy is one where most of the GDP comes from capitalist companies. If most of the GDP came from socially owned companies, then the economy would be socialist, not capitalist. There are some regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP comes from worker cooperatives.
keep in mind that there are two different types of socialism. one where the workers directly own the means of production. the other, workers indirectly own the means of production through the state.
There are 3 main types of ownership:
you have private ownership (capitalism), you have public ownership (government/SOEs), you have social ownership (coop/WSDEs), and you have communism (no class, money or state). Communism comes from the word community. It works like this: https://youtu.be/8xGY6Lc71ns
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership. For example,
>>>> Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
1
-
@red.samurai , >>>> Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans (create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
These Financial funds are mandated to make investments in various firms or social Enterprises, in accordance with a broader social man, while still learning and adequate or Target rate of return.
The solidarity fund is a 10 billion investment fund established by the Quebec Federation of Labor in Canada to invest in businesses which contribute to Quebec's economic and social development. RSF social Finance is a non-profit financial institution , (founded in 1936) focus on lending to nonprofit and social Enterprises in the US. Oxfam UK has started an Enterprise Development Program to channel financial investments to social enterprises in 20 developing countries. Alaska Native Corporations are collectively owned entities founded with Native resource revenues, to invest in a range of businesses and development projects; their collective revenues exceed 10 billion per year.
• Sovereign wealth.
These funds are owned by a national government, funded with state revenues (often from resource production); they invest in strategic businesses and / or generate future investment income to fund public pensions and other public programs.
Sovereign wealth has grown rapidly in recent years, and now totals over US$ 5 trillion in Investments. Petroleum producing countries have been most aggressive in creating these funds (to save nonrenewable wealth for future uses), but some non-petroleum countries have established Sovereign funds as well (such as Korea, China and Singapore). The largest fund is Norway's government pension fund, with assets approaching US$ 1 trillion; it single-handedly owns about 2% of All European corporate shares.
• Microcredit.
Microlending is undertaken on a nonprofit or cost-recovery basis, with a focus on small loans to households and small producers (usually in developing countries or poor neighborhoods).
The most famous microcredit institution is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, owned cooperatively by its Borrowers; it extends small low interest loans (mostly to women) through a participatory loan management system ( in which groups of borrowers collectively determine who receives new loans, and collectively ensure the loans are repaid). Similar systems have been introduced in other poor countries, and in some regions or neighborhoods of rich countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akhjanyerkin4833 , dude, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. There's hundreds of thousands of worker-owned companies all over the world. Workers owning their own means of production doesn't result in people being killed. Doesn't result in tyrannical governments. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter what socioeconomic system you're dealing with, if you give unaccountable power to some government, if you remove checks and balances, then you're asking for trouble. But what does that have to do with socialism? Nothing. Did you even listen to the discussion? And the reason that there was totalitarian governments in countries such as USSR is because they were under constant attack a country such as United States. That's why the people had to put in a centralized command structure in order to deal with constant threats. As soon as the workers took over in 1917 the first thing the United States did was get together with Canada, Japan, England, to attack those workers. The United States sent troops right into the Russia to crush them. The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922. You simply don't know what you're talkin about. You're engaging in black-and-white thinking and over-simplification. Do you have any idea how many democracies the United States has overthrown between the years of 1945 and 1999? Do you have any idea how many terrorists around the world the United States is funded for the purpose of overthrowing Communism and socialism? Why do you think the United States funded the mujahideen and Taliban in Afghanistan back in the 70s? For the purpose of overthrowing the peoples democratic government. If you look at the deaths that the United States is responsible for attacking those socialist and communist countries, they far outweigh anything committed by the Soviet Union.
Socialism is simply various forms of collectivism where communities and workers get together for the purpose of owning their own factories, businesses and means of production. That way workers and communities can keep all of the wealth of their labour produces rather than having to give most of it to some individual like Donald Trump. And of course it's the capitals Class comes up with Spook stories that the sky will fall. Yeah, of course, because they want to own the product of your labour. If you own the product of your labour, then they can't. It's almost as bad as believing that masturbation will make you go blind. I think you need to watch the video. 😃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are you talking about? Your comment makes no sense. Is English not your first language? Can you not comprehend what Richard Wolff is saying? Poison frogs? Dude, what Richard Wolff is saying is very very very very very very simple. When the rich people control the capital and the means of production then they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, etcetera. They get most of the wealth produced by labor. That's why most things are made in China and why the richest 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The 8 richest people almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
Workers cannot afford to buy factories, grocery stores, apartment buildings, railroads, etc. So if they work together collectively, socially, then they can own their own means of production. When you own your own means of production, then you're free. You have a source of wealth and independence. You own the product of your labor. You get to keep all of the wealth of your labor produces. That makes you less dependent upon governments and capitals corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. Do you understand? Can you comprehend? Is that clear enough? Fuc. Pay closer attention and take notes if you have to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@judychandler8733 , their government is socialist. Not their economy. Less of their industry and jobs are in the public sector then places such as Norway or Denmark. So if you're going to criticize socialism, why would you choose a country with the least amount of socialized infrastructure? Doesn't make any sense.
Where do I get my information. The National Security archive, the Freedom of Information Act, the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies, Noam Chomsky, Michael parenti, Chris hedges, democracy Now, The Real News Network, etc. and the list goes on and on.
where in the hell do you get your information? Mainstream media? Propaganda organizations? Tabloids posing as news outlets?
1. "The US intervention in Venezuela is the longest war of our century-- (eighteen years) – exceeding the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflict also illustrates how the US relies on regional clients and overseas allies to provide cover for imperial power grabs." ~ James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
and I'm willing to bet you're talking about State socialism. for your information Richard Wolff does not advocate for State socialism. social programs paid for by capitalist tax dollars is a type of capitalism. he's talking about genuine socialism where the workers actually own and control their own labour and resources. for more information on the original definition of socialism, I would recommend referring to Noam Chomsky
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FabiWann , well you must not be taking all the variables into consideration. We know that worker-owned companies are more efficient than capitalist companies, workers are happier, take less sick days, or more creative, more efficient, there's less incidence of mental illness, suicide, drug abuse, Etc.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, if you own the business then you can use whatever quality paint that you want. When you own the business you get to make all the decisions. What Richard Wolff is pointing out is that if workers want to make their own decisions, then they have to form their own company or factory. That's all. And if those workers produce an inferior product compared to your own, because they're using a cheaper paint, then presumably, your business will be more popular with the customers than the socially owned company. Therefore you will be more profitable. In theory.
Richard Wolff is not incorrect. I'm not sure what you think he was wrong about.
If you're interested, here's some testimony from workers that own their own businesses.
• How about the Ocean Spray cranberry cooperative? Do those workers make minimum wage? 2000 employees produce roughly one and a half billion dollars annually. So how much do you think the workers get paid?
https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
• how about these Cooperative owners in Argentina? Do you think they're making more or less money now that they are the actual owners? Do you think the business is actually doing better or worse now that the workers actually own the company and operated democratically? https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
• when you pay your electric bill, when you buy a home, when you buy a condo, Etc, do you want to be buying these things at cost! Or do you want to be putting money into other the pocket of middlemen that aren't actually doing any work or contributing anything? https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
• do you think these workers are making minimum wage? Or are they making a living wage? doesn't sound like they're enjoying being able to actually share in the decision-making process? Does it sound like they are happier having more freedom and control, along with getting paid more? https://youtu.be/8vJDhKMrncw
• these Cooperative is definitely provide more equality, freedom and prosperity compared to capitalist Enterprises. Along with that they have acceptance, the advantage pooling their resources for their families and community, autonomy & Independence (allowed to be unique, it's actually valued instead of discouraged), teaching and education are part of the job -not just simply producing like a Mindless robot!, support, real and genuine concern for your fellow workers and community, sustainable development, etc, etc. https://youtu.be/NO-8iI7GW70
• Evergreen cooperatives! One of the reasons they exist is because it's impossible have a quality life when only making minimum wage. They provide people with a living wage. https://youtu.be/4zU8_ofpPyQ
• even in poor countries during the financial crisis, the workers are still making a living wage, often much more than their American counterparts. https://youtu.be/zaJ1hfVPUe8
1
-
1
-
1
-
@denverdon3450 , yes, and that's fine. But it doesn't negate anything that I've said.
why does 80% of the population since this on $10 a day or less? Why do people have to work 40 hours a week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950? Why hasn't real wages increased since 1970? Why is the percentage of GDP going to workers steadily been decreasing since 1950? Because most of the wealth produced by a labour under capitalism ends up going into the pockets of the billionaire class rather than the actual wealth producers. That's the point.
If we had a real economic system, chances are people wouldn't need to work any more than 10 hours a week while having three times the standard of living today.
you don't know what economic feudalism is? well a democracy is when everyone has equal voting power. but under capitalism decision making depends on how many shares you can afford. so if someone like get Bill Gates can buy a million shares, he gets a million votes. this is what we call a plutocracy.: rule by money. so a very small minority of people get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, what kind of environment workers have to labour in, Etc.
many people had to die fighting for the right to unionize in order to protect themselves from the powers and abuses of this kind of control and wealth.
Back in the days of JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc, one in 11 workers would die from exhaustion. thousands of people would die daily being forced to work in unsafe conditions. thousands more would die from water and food contamination. 9 year old children had to work 16 hours a day so Stanley's could survive because wages were so low. so even though working hours should be decreasing today thanks to technology and workers should have more disposable income, instead we see more and more workers no longer being able to afford a family on a single income.
in an economic democracy, citizens and workers have control over their resources and means of production. one worker equals one vote. they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc.
you see, when you don't own the product of your labour, you're basically a Slave. like livestock. when the farmer gives the cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does the cow get to work half as many hours? Does the cow get twice as much milk? no, every drop Of Milk The Cow produces belongs to the farmer. likewise, everything workers produce at a capitalist company belongs to someone else. if workers make a million dollars worth of bread, they've basically made someone else a million dollars. but at a cooperative, that money goes to the workers because they are producing their own products. so, if labor-saving technology is introduced which Cuts Manpower in half, the workers now have twice the number of people to share in the remaining workload. working hours can be cut in half. what are the capitals company, those workers are laid off where they have to compete with other unemployed people, And that competition drives the value of Labor down.
that's why the vast majority of people today have to work 40 hours a week or more. that's also why we have so much environmental devastation. in this environment the only thing workers/ citizens can do is beg government to put regulations in place to protect the environment and themselves. and we both know how well that works. under economic feudalism the owners of capital control the government just as they control the resources and means of production.
1
-
@denverdon3450 , absolutely! I agree. The ruling class controls the government. Under the capitalist system they are referred to as the owning class. They own most of the capital and therefore the government represents them. So they love to put in regulations that are going to benefit and protect their interests.
for example, you mentioned immigrants competing workers from the home country. Yes, that's true, competition will drive the value of Labor down. Especially when people are so desperate they're willing to work for a lot less than others.
but who's responsible for such a huge influx of immigrants into the country? Let's just look at one example to start with. in the name of the free market the Billionaire's pushed the government to enact Gatt and NAFTA for Canada and the United States. This was a well-calculated plan in order to increase immigration in the country. they knew most of the farmers in Mexico would not be able to compete with cheap American and Canadian Imports. things like corn, chicken, Etc. we can produce corn at a fraction of the price. People such as Donald Trump knew that if we flooded the Mexican market it would bankrupt the farmers, which make up the majority of the workers in the country. That would enable the corporations to then buy up most of the land and equipment for pennies on the dollar. they also knew that those bankrupted Farmers would be extremely desperate to feed their families.
so you see how the capitalist class using the free market killed many birds with one stone? bankrupting the farmers allowed Americans and Canadians to Offshore production to Mexico while simultaneously providing a Surplus Army of desperate workers. they also knew that because thanks to labor-saving technology there would be way more desperate workers than available jobs. they knew those workers would have no choice but to cross the border. the capital of New the competition from immigration would drive down the prices at those capitalist businesses and factories that couldn't be offshore to Mexico.
the capitalist class has been using economic imperialism for a very long time now. not just against foreign countries, but against its own workers. they've been doing that since the Inception of the United States. Starting with the founding fathers. people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, they were notorious for their tactics.
that's why we want to move away from capitalism to a system where workers and communities control the capital rather than the billionaire class. worker cooperatives are not depended upon constant expansion. they don't need to open up more markets in different countries. capitalist do because labor-saving technology allows them to produce more and more with less and less labour.so on one end they're eroding purchasing power and then on the other end they eventually run out of consumers. People can only buy so many cars, refrigerators, Etc. workers are dependant upon a 40-hour work week in order to survive because the increases in productivity, the wealth increased by that productivity, end up going to the owners of the factories rather than reducing working hours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dore 2024!
Yes, I know, it’s always premature to discuss the next presidential contest. But I’ll make my pick for 2024 known now: Jimmy Dore.
For those who dismiss a comedian running for the highest office, I say, why not? Dick Gregory ran for president in 1968 as a write-in candidate for the Freedom and Peace Party. The comedian and civil rights activist used his run to energize the anti-war movement, draw attention to the needs of the working class and the harassment many people of color still faced following the passage of numerous civil rights bills.
Gregory, although he only accumulated close to 50,000 votes, frightened the Nixon administration with his campaign. Personnel in the Nixon White House feared Gregory may become the “black messiah” J. Edgar Hoover long warned about. Shortly after that warning, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Fred Hampton were gunned down. Fearful of his profile and his building of a true rainbow coalition, Gregory was placed on Nixon’s dreaded enemies list.
I sincerely believe a Dore presidential campaign could have the same effect. It could empower various social movements and make the oligarchs and their two corporate/puppet parties quake in their boots. Dore could start the race with genuine grassroots support and funding from the people.
Dore has expressed both interest and some hesitancy. But if history is any guide, I say he shouldn’t be worried. Run, Jimmy! Scare the oligarchs and empower the people!
Dore 2024!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realtyhaven , okay. But you're not doing a very good job. Try harder. 😃
All Richard Wolff is doing is pointing out that under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour. it's economic feudalism. When it comes to about 94% of production they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. Economic feudalism. That's why most of our products are now made in China and why people still have to work 40 hours a week even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950.
anyway, Richard Wolff is just pointing out that if workers obtain their own capital, if they form their own business or factory, then they can be their own boss and run things democratically; keeping all of the wealth that their labour produces. that's why there are some socially owned factories in the United States were assembly line workers can make $70,000 a year. An assembly line worker can't make that much money at a capitalist company because the workers don't own the product of their labour. When the workers make a million dollars worth of product, they basically made that money for someone else. but look at Ocean Spray, for example. Two thousand workers own the company. They produce something like 1.2 billion dollars in sales annually. That money goes to the workers. when Walmart or Amazon makes billions of dollars in sales, most of that money goes to idle shareholders, many of whom are not even in the same country.
so, if we increase the number of democratic workplaces, as Richard will suggest, we can keep more wealth and control with the community. And that is more conducive to a free market in thriving economy because people have more money to spend. That makes it easier for other people to start their own private small businesses. That's because people are able to buy more coffee, Pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. you see, jobs are tied to consumption. If consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. It's a domino effect. A downward spiral. However, if you increase purchasing power, then the economy expands. capitalism is bad for the economy because it erodes purchasing power. Capitalists do everything they can to maximize profit by suppressing wages and increasing production output. obviously you can't be constantly producing more why learning less. can you imagine if your spending habits increased at a much faster rate than your income? What would the consequence be? What if you spent $100 for every $50 you weren't? obviously workers have to be able to afford the goods and services that are in circulation. That means wages have to be commensurate with production output. what are the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. Capitalism violates that very basic principle. that's why there's so much debt. people work 40 hours a week because wages are so low. with every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. but all the increases go to the owners of capital. Workers remain depended upon a 40-hour work week in order to survive. that's the consequence of not owning the product of your labour.
not only is everything Richard Wolff saying accurate. It's very straightforward, simple and obvious. even if a person doesn't understand what he's saying, it doesn't take too much effort to actually substantiate the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanhraba747 , it's not how any of what works?
Yes, capitalism is about the maximization of capital accumulation for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour and resources. There are billionaires out there making hundreds of thousands of dollars per second just from their Capital Holdings. That every time you have a dollar that goes to someone who doesn't work, somewhere else you have someone who worked for a dollar that they don't get.
When you work as an employee at a capitals company, you don't get the full value of what your labour. And then, when you want access to the product of your labour, have to pay even more because what you produce doesn't belong to you.
But when workers own their own companies in factories, then they get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces and they also get to be their own boss. They don't have to worry about their jobs being moved to China.
For example, there's a socially owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make $70,000 a year. But if you're an assembly line worker at a capitalist company, you'll be very lucky if you make $20,000 a year even though technically your labour is producing much more wealth than that. For example, the workers owned Amazon or apple, the lowest paid worker would be making roughly about $400,000 a year. The assembly line workers at the Socialist bread factory make $70,000 a year because every loaf of bread they produce belongs to them. But if they were working at someone else's bread factory then every loaf of bread they produce would belong to someone else. It wouldn't matter if they produce a hundred loaves of bread or a million loaves of bread. They would just be paid for an eight-hour day. That's why labor-saving technology under capitalism doesn't reduce working hours.
Here's an example of two socialist companies in the United States. The workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tlev2007 , of course socialism is the answer. Wealth should actually stay with the wealth producers. There's no need to be depended upon capitalist corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. There are literally thousands of examples of bottom-up systems of social organization.
Consider the Paris commune, or consider the 135 thousand workers in Spain that own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. One worker equals one vote. It's a bottom-up system.
The workers get paid the full value of their labour and they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. They don't have to worry about some CEO or board of directors forcing them to pollute their environment, like what happened in Flint Michigan with the water supply.
They don't have to worry about a dictatorial owner moving production to China! They don't have to worry about Boards of directors cutting their wages in order to increase profits. And because they get paid the full value of their labour, they have a lot more money to spend in to their Community, which means smaller businesses thrive.
in that environment if 50 workers are replaced by automation, you end up with 50 extra workers to share in the remaining workload. but under a capitalist system those 50 workers would end up on the unemployment line where they would have to compete with one another for jobs that are continuously decreasing in number. That competition actually drives down the value of Labor. and that is not conducive to a free market. workers need enough money to actually be able to purchase the very goods and services that they're creating in the first place. That's why capitalism is technically an anti economic system. it's not conducive to free markets. socialism is conducive to free markets and prosperity because wealth actually stays with the wealth producers. that was the argument that Richard Wolff was making.
You see, as things are now, both workers and consumers are depended upon corporations for both jobs and consumer goods. Most of the population on Earth is dependant upon these few people that own these corporations. That's why we're in a situation where we end up doing most of the work but they get most of the money. We need to free ourselves from this state of dependency.
If we start producing our own goods and services and our own jobs, then we can keep wealth where it belongs, with us!
When wealth actually stays with the wealth producers and the community, then workers make more money! And when workers make more money, they can spend more into their communities. So that way you end up with more people with jobs making pizza, cutting hair, bowling alleys, entertainment centres, Etc.
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tlev2007 , why would CEOs have to give up their position? No one is talking about anyone giving up their positions. For example, if workers put together their own version of Amazon, the CEO at Amazon is not going to have to give up his position. Why would he? I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
Sure, people like Epstein are going to tell you that Democratic systems cannot be as efficient or as productive, or as prosperous as capitalist Enterprises. But he's lying to you! He gets paid to lie. That's why the reason Foundation was established! It's their job to lie to you. It's just like what the tobacco companies used to do. Like the tobacco companies, capitals corporations are making billions of dollars off of other people's labour. when people should be making at least $65,000 a year, they're only making minimum wage about 725 an hour. and of course they want to keep things that way. Did you know that 44% of Americans make $18,000 a year or less? that's trillions of dollars that should be going to workers that are going to billionaires instead. That is why they developed the privatization organizations and the reason foundation and people such as Epstein.
saying that cooperatives cannot be a successful or as prosperous as capitalist hierarchical systems, that is simply not true. That is a blatant lie! and people such as Epstein know it!
Consider the data, the science, the statistics, the peer-reviewed research, etc. just to give a few examples,
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
Epstein is a liar! the reason Foundation is a propaganda organization. It's no different than what the tobacco companies used to do.
The debate was organized by the reason Foundation which is funded by billionaires connected with the oil and banking industry. They are an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN)!!! Reason Foundation's projects include NewEnvironmentalism.org and Privatization.org, as well as Reason Magazine. It is part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation network.
"The Reason Foundation, a self-described "libertarian"[1] think tank, is a right-wing 501(c)3 nonprofit and "associate" member of the State Policy Network (SPN).[2] Reason Foundation's projects include NewEnvironmentalism.org and Privatization.org, as well as Reason Magazine[3] It is part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundationnetwork.
The Reason Foundation is funded, in part, by what are known as the Koch Family Foundations and David Koch serves as a Reason trustee.[4]"
"Privatization.org is the online site of the Privatization Center of the Reason Foundation, founded in 1992 to conduct and disseminate research to federal, state, and local policymakers arguing for privatization of government services in the areas of health, social services, and public safety--as well as infrastructure, such as airports, electric power, highways, transit, and water/wastewater facilities."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Privatization.org
"The State Policy Network (SPN) is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of October 2019, SPN's membership totals 162. Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network
The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , you are a liar and a fraud. You keep accusing claiming that Marxism is wrong when you don't even know what it is or how it works. I asked you 20 basic questions on Marxism and you couldn't answer a single solitary one. For example, Karl Marx never used the term labour theory of value. Ever. Nor did he say that workers should get paid the full value of their labour.
So why are you such a liar and a fraud? Do you actually have a master's degree in accounting as you claim? How could that possibly be true when you can't even comprehend simple economic realities? Just consider some of your comments:
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah but we live in the real world. That's why we need real solutions. The type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about is a bottom-up, not a hierarchical system of social organization. It's not prone to crops in the way that top-down, undemocratic systems are. Systems like capitalism. We know how well the bottom up systems work because there are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. not only are workers their own bosses and get to keep all of the wealth of their labour produces, they are happier, more creative, more efficient, they work harder, there's less incidence of mental illness, suicide, depression, substance abuse, Etc.
1
-
@libertytreebud5406 , that's why we need a bottom up, Democratic Don hierarchical system of social organization. In that environment the governments are controlled by the people, from the foundation. When communities and workers control their own resources , production and labour, then governments have very little top down influence.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@perrymason866 , so automatically associating State intervention with murder and dictatorships, that's not being rational.
Let's consider the 125000 workers in Spain that own their own means of production, Bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, universities, Hospital, Etc. That is a bottom-up system. The workers get paid the full value of their labour. They're not under a dictatorship of some CEO or idle shareholders. And because workers get paid the full value of their labour, smaller businesses in the community thrive because when workers have more money, they can afford to purchase more goods and services by their fellow workers!
what do you think governments are for in the first place? It's a powerful tool of social organization. so, considering the example that I just gave you, the government provided those workers with the capital that they needed in order to build the necessary tools that enabled them to be independent. those tools enable the workers to produce goods and services of value. the money that was generated was used to pay back the government for the initial startup costs. so that initial investment led to the massive Cooperative in Spain of the hundred twenty five thousand workers, and that led to thousands of more smaller businesses because of the so that initial investment led to the massive Cooperative in Spain of the hundred twenty five thousand workers, and that led to thousands of more smaller businesses
1
-
@perrymason866 , you think it's different that I claim? I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I'm acting as if all big businesses started out as big businesses? Of course not! :-) where'd you get that idea from?
Yeah, the Scandinavian welfare state is different than socially owned workplaces. Of course. I have no idea what you're talking about. Naturally there's a big difference between State capitalism and socialism.
The point is, because the billionaires control most of the money, Land, Resources, corporations, Etc, most people don't have access to the capital they need to start their own cooperative. The richest 1% of society owns 83% of world stocks! if you include the top 10%, we're talkin 99% of the stocks! Whoever has the most shares gets the most votes. Those with the most votes get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why the vast majority of people are so poor. That's why were you still have a 40 Hour Work Week.
Again, if workers have access to the capital they need in order to produce their own tools and resources, then they don't need to be depended on billionaires for jobs and consumer goods. They can actually get the full value of their oh, and that is more conducive to a free market and thriving economy because they have greater purchasing power. It's a very simple argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xpistos510 , there's this thing called the Freedom of Information Act. I would highly recommend that you start looking at has been Declassified and what's in the public record.
Why is Putin so popular among Russian population?
Well let's see what James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies) has to say about Putin.
"During the 1990’s, the US plundered Russia at will. Washington imposed a unipolar world, celebrated as the ‘New World Order’. They bombed and devastated former Russian allies like Yugoslavia and Iraq, setting up ethnically cleansed rump states like Kosovo for their huge military bases. Meanwhile, Washington reduced Russia, under the inebriate Yeltsin regime, to a backwater vassal stripped of its resources, its institutions, scientists, and research centers. In the absence of war, the Russian economy declined by 50% and life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The US celebrated this ‘victory of democracy’ over a helpless, deteriorating state by welcoming the most obscene new gangster oligarchs and pillagers and laundering their bloodstained loot.
The door slammed shut on the pillage with the election of Vladimir Putin and the demise of the Yeltsin gangster-government. Russia was transformed: Putin reversed Russia’s demise: The economy recovered, living standards rose abruptly; employment in all sectors increased, and cultural, educational and scientific centers were restored. Vladimir Putin was elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities of the Russian electorate despite huge sums of Western money going to his opponents. Russia systematically recovered many strategic sectors of the economy illegally seized by Western-backed Israeli-Russian oligarchs. Even more important, Putin restored Russian statecraft and diplomacy - formulating a strategy for an independent, democratic foreign policy and restoring Russia’s defense capability. The loss of this critical vassal state under its dipsomaniacal Boris Yeltsin shook the US EU-NATO alliance to its very core.
In the beginning President Putin did not oppose the US-NATO military invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It went along with the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. It even maintained its cooperation despite a US-sponsored attack by the government of Georgia against South Ossetia killing scores of Russian peacekeepers. In the wake of those destabilizing disasters, what finally led the Russian government to reverse its complicity with the West was the horrific US-financed invasion of Syria where Russian jihadis from the Caucasus were playing an important role as mercenaries, threatening to return and undermine the stability of Russia. This was quickly followed by the US-sponsored putsch in Ukraine, fomenting a civil war on Russia’s frontiers, threatening is vital naval base in Crimea and repressing millions of ethnic Russian - Ukrainian citizens in the industrialized Donbas region. These blatant aggression finally pushed Putin to challenge the expansionist policies of Washington and the EU."
Putin & the Press: The Demonology School of Journalism
"The major influential western print media are engaged in a prolonged, large-scale effort to demonize Russian President Putin, his politics and persona. There is an article (or several articles) every day in which he is personally stigmatized as a dictator, authoritarian, czar, ‘former KGB operative’ and Soviet-style ruler; anything but the repeatedly elected President of Russia.…
He is accused of hijacking Russia from the ‘road to democracy’, as pursued by his grotesquely corrupt predecessor Boris Yeltsin; of directing the bloody repression of the ‘freedom loving Chechens’; of jailing innocent, independent and critical oligarchs and robber barons; of fomenting an uprising in the ‘democratic, newly pro-Western’ Ukraine and seizing control of Crimea; of backing a ‘bloody tyrant’ in Syria (elected President Bashar Assad) in a civil war against ISIS terrorists; of running the Russian economy into the ground; and of militarily threatening the Baltic and Eastern European NATO member countries.
In a word, the media have propagated an image of an ‘out-of-control autocrat’, who makes a mockery of ‘democratic’ norms and ‘Western values’, and who seeks to revive the ‘Soviet (aka Evil) Empire’.
The corollary is that ‘Western powers’, despite their peace-loving propensities and fraternal attempts to bring Russia into the democratic ‘fold’, have been ‘forced’ to now surround Russia with NATO military bases and missiles; to finance a violent coup in the Ukraine (on Russia’s frontier) and arm the Ukrainian putsch government and neo-fascist militias to ‘restore democracy’ and violently suppress ethnic Russian ‘separatists’ in Eastern Ukraine. We are told that US and EU sanctions against Russia were carefully crafted ‘diplomatic’ measures designed to punish the Moscow ‘aggressor’.
In reality, the Western media has relentlessly demonized Vladimir Putin in a campaign to further NATO military expansion and undermine the Russian economy and its national security. The goal is ultimately to force a ‘regime change’, restoring the neo-liberal elites who had pillaged Russia’s economy during the 1990’s and whose brutal economic policies led to the premature death of over 6 million Russians due to deprivation and the collapse of the healthcare system.
The Western media has backed every oligarch, gangster and fraudster who has gone on trial and been convicted during Putin’s term in office. The propagandists tell us the reason for this affinity between the Western media and the gangster-oligarchs is that these convicted felons, who claim to be ‘political dissidents’ and critics of Putin’s rule, have been dispossessed, and jailed for upholding ‘Western values’." ~
"In the biggest power grab since George Bush seized Eastern Europe and converted it into a NATO bastion confronting Russia, the Obama regime, together with the EU, financed and organized a violent putsch in the Ukraine which established a puppet regime in Kiev." ~ James Petras, 2014
1
-
@steveor4659 , oh yeah, I'm sure that Putin knows that NATO would never attack Russia from the Ukraine. It's not like they bombed Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, tried to overthrow Venezuela, excetera, excetera. It's not like they were already funding fascists in the country who killed over fourteen thousand ethnic Russians in the east, along with many young children. It's not like NATO didn't already start the war in 2014 with the coup.
Yeah, you're making one hell of an argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnnyboy62parker39 , "... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds.
1
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies).
"During the 1990’s, the US plundered Russia at will. Washington imposed a unipolar world, celebrated as the ‘New World Order’. They bombed and devastated former Russian allies like Yugoslavia and Iraq, setting up ethnically cleansed rump states like Kosovo for their huge military bases. Meanwhile, Washington reduced Russia, under the inebriate Yeltsin regime, to a backwater vassal stripped of its resources, its institutions, scientists, and research centers. In the absence of war, the Russian economy declined by 50% and life expectancy fell below that of Bangladesh. The US celebrated this ‘victory of democracy’ over a helpless, deteriorating state by welcoming the most obscene new gangster oligarchs and pillagers and laundering their bloodstained loot.
The door slammed shut on the pillage with the election of Vladimir Putin and the demise of the Yeltsin gangster-government. Russia was transformed: Putin reversed Russia’s demise: The economy recovered, living standards rose abruptly; employment in all sectors increased, and cultural, educational and scientific centers were restored. Vladimir Putin was elected and re-elected by overwhelming majorities of the Russian electorate despite huge sums of Western money going to his opponents. Russia systematically recovered many strategic sectors of the economy illegally seized by Western-backed Israeli-Russian oligarchs. Even more important, Putin restored Russian statecraft and diplomacy - formulating a strategy for an independent, democratic foreign policy and restoring Russia’s defense capability. The loss of this critical vassal state under its dipsomaniacal Boris Yeltsin shook the US EU-NATO alliance to its very core.
In the beginning President Putin did not oppose the US-NATO military invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It went along with the economic sanctions imposed on Iran. It even maintained its cooperation despite a US-sponsored attack by the government of Georgia against South Ossetia killing scores of Russian peacekeepers. In the wake of those destabilizing disasters, what finally led the Russian government to reverse its complicity with the West was the horrific US-financed invasion of Syria where Russian jihadis from the Caucasus were playing an important role as mercenaries, threatening to return and undermine the stability of Russia. This was quickly followed by the US-sponsored putsch in Ukraine, fomenting a civil war on Russia’s frontiers, threatening is vital naval base in Crimea and repressing millions of ethnic Russian - Ukrainian citizens in the industrialized Donbas region. These blatant aggression finally pushed Putin to challenge the expansionist policies of Washington and the EU."
1
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , "For decades we were told that a huge military establishment was necessary to contain an expansionist world communist movement with its headquarters in Moscow (or sometimes Beijing). The US and other western capitalist nations formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 supposedly to serve as a bulwark against the threat of a Soviet invasion across Europe. Evidence of such a threat was never forthcoming. Still the “NATO shield” was put together, consisting of a massive build-up of military forces throughout Western Europe operating in effect under the hegemony of the US.
But after the overthrow of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European communist nations, Washington made no move to dismantle NATO. Instead of being abolished, NATO was expanded to include nations that reached across Eastern Europe right to Russia’s border. In trying to convince us that we still needed NATO, policymakers and editorialists let fly a variety of arguments.
First, we heard that NATO is a relative bargain since the US pays only 25% of its cost—as if this spoke to its purpose or political value.
Second, NATO can be used as a collective force for interventions without being stymied by a UN veto, as might happen when Washington seeks a United Nations mandate for war and invasion against some country. In other words, the US has a freer hand operating through NATO than through the United Nations. Thus when the UN Security Council (because of Russian and Chinese vetoes) refused to cooperate with the destruction of Yugoslavia, Washington just enlisted NATO.
Third, we are told by one mainstream newspaper that “NATO is committed to defending countries that share a commitment to democracy and free enterprise.”
Do we still need NATO? Actually the US public never needed NATO. The Soviet Red Army had neither the interest nor the capacity to invade Western Europe after World War II; State Department studies have admitted as much.
Does that mean NATO has been senseless or useless? Not at all; it is a valuable tool to lock the Western European countries into the US imperial system, just as it is now doing to the newly capitalized Eastern European countries.
After the overthrow of the Soviet Union and the other Eastern European communist nations, all Cold War weapons programs in the US continued in production, with new ones being added all the time, including plans to conduct war from outer space. In short time the White House and Pentagon began issuing jeremiads about a whole host of new enemies—for some unexplained reason previously overlooked—who posed a mortal threat to the US, including “dangerous rogue states” like Libya with its menacing rag-tag army of 50,000."
~ Michael Parenti
1
-
@rommiewilliams367popsmruff , NATO war crimes in Yugoslavia
"From March 24 to June 10 1999, US military forces, in coordination with a number of other NATO powers, launched round-the-dock aerial attacks against Yugoslavia, dropping 20,000 tons of bombs and killing upwards of 3,000 women, children, and men. All this was done out of humanitarian concern for Albanians in Kosovo—or so we were asked to believe. In the span of a few months, President Clinton bombed four countries: Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq (repeatedly), and Yugoslavia (massively). At the same time, the US national security state was involved in proxy wars in Angola, Mexico (Chiapas), Colombia, and East Timor, among other places. US forces were deployed across the globe at some three hundred major overseas bases—all in the name of peace, democracy, national security, and humanitarianism." ~ Michael Parenti
https://youtu.be/YyvezvSQtq0
1
-
@masterghotihook5793 , no, not projection. Have you been listening to foreign policy experts and lawyers that specialize in international law during the last 30 years? Are you familiar with all of the documents that have been Declassified thanks to lawyers that were able to get that information thanks to the Freedom of Information Act? Why don't you check with the National Security archive.
▪ Noam Chomsky:
"In 2014, a Russia-supported government in Ukraine was forcefully removed from power by a coup supported by the U.S. and replaced by a U.S. and European-backed government. It was a development that brought closer to war the two main antagonists of the Cold War era, as Moscow regards both U.S. and European involvement in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued eastward expansion as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to encircle Russia.
The strategy of encirclement is indeed as old as NATO itself, and this is the reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin issued recently a list of demands to the U.S. and NATO with regard to their actions in Ukraine and even parts of the former Soviet space. In the meantime, senior-level Russian officials have gone even further by warning of military response if NATO continues to ignore Moscow’s security concerns. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a solvable problem, but one wonders if the U.S. will remain dedicated to a 'zombie policy' that could produce potentially awful consequences in the event of a diplomatic failure.
There’s more to add, of course. What happened in 2014, whatever one thinks of it, amounted to a coup with U.S. support that replaced the Russia-oriented government by a Western-oriented one. That led Russia to annex Crimea, mainly to protect its sole warm water port and naval base, and apparently with the agreement of a considerable majority of the Crimean population. There’s extensive scholarship on the complexities, particularly Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine and more recent work."
▪ "... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds.
▪ The United States formed NATO in 1949 with 11 countries in its own interest and with the aim of destroying the communist bloc. Today, NATO is engaged in creating terrorism in more than 30 countries around the world. The United States and NATO have opened shops around democracy and destroyed countless countries, large and small. They are not friends of anyone. They are bigots.
Why was NATO not dismissed in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded? The USSR, the CIA's deep conspiracy, was broken into pieces and then those pieces were gradually incorporated into NATO, lastly Ukraine. Attempts by NATO to destroy or pressure Russia, which is surrounded by NATO, are never acceptable. A war organization called NATO should be disbanded immediately. Then the world will return to balance. Get rid of NATO and save the world nuclear annihilation.
▪ Former Top Pentagon advisor Col. Doug MacGregor on Russia Ukraine war
https://youtu.be/NFngc_8RiVc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrHigherplane , you're missing the point. He was just using fast food as an example. The point is that it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with fast food or bags of beans. e.g. Corporations have reduced crop rotation in order to squeeze out more profits. That has resulted in soil erosion and food that has less nutritional value. When plants are nutrient deprived, they lose their ability to resist disease and parasites. The corporation's compensate for this by using ever-increasing toxic chemicals. Why do you think vegetables are so tasteless? Why do you think so many people have extreme allergies to things such as peanuts?
It doesn't matter what industry you're dealing with. When it comes to Pharmaceuticals, prices are inflated. Look what's going on with insulin! There are vital medications that people need but can't afford. A lot of these medications cost almost nothing to produce, but the industry will jack up the price as high as possible.
but anyway, in regards to food, most people don't have the time to buy and prepare dried beans. Do you have any idea how many Americans are living from check to check, and have to work multiple jobs just to be able to pay the rent? Most of these people don't even have time to sleep a full 8 hours! and here you are talking about people taking personal responsibility. I can't believe you actually buy into that propaganda! wages in the United States have been stagnant since 1970! One hour of work, for the average individual, is worth less today than it was in 1970.
why do you think so many Americans are suffering from mental disorders and committing suicide? Take personal responsibility? W like going up to somebody in a wheelchair after you just broke their legs and telling them that they need to take personal responsibility for not being able to run.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
you just wait till the next financial crash. I hope you've been saving your pennies for a rainy day. :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thestonemaster81 , well you must not have listened to the debate because the type of socialism being discussed doesn't have anything to do with the government. The core concept of socialism is worker and Community ownership. Now you can either have direct ownership or you can have indirect ownership through the government. Traditional socialist such as Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, George Orwell, they do not consider State socialism to be a legitimate form of Socialism. That's why George Orwell wrote Animal Farm. That's why traditional socialist call that state capitalism. The state owns the capital and is the employer. You still have the employer-employee dynamic. You still have a top-down, hierarchical system of organization. But when the workers directly owned their own factories and businesses, then there is no employee-employer dynamic. It is a bottom-up, democratic non-hierarchical system of organization which is not prone to corruption the way that top down systems are.
That type of socialism makes workers and communities less dependant upon the government and billionaire corporations when it comes to jobs and consumer goods.
Also, that type of socialism is more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy because when the wealth flows to the workers instead of a small group of billionaire capitalist owners oh, they have more money to spend into the economy. That creates greater demand for pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, Etc. The economy expands. But billionaires they already have more money than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes. They take that money and buy up more capital. For example, Bill Gates is now the largest farmland owner in the United States. He also bought up the Canadian railroad system and newly privatized Labs were people get their blood tested. So instead of workers having more money to spend into the economy, you have the exact opposite when it flows to the billionaires. Now workers are going to have even less purchasing power because they have to spend extra money every time they buy food that was transported by Bill Gates's railroad. Every time they get their blood tested they have to pay extra money to Bill Gates. Every time they Park their car at the hospital they have to pay extra money to Bill Gates. Every dollar that goes to Bill Gates is one less dollar purchasing power workers have.
Capitalism is a modern form of slavery. Now because of the capital Bill Gates owns, he can sit back and make literally hundreds of thousands of dollars per second while he sleeping! Where do you think that money comes from? That money has to come from workers. That's trillions of dollars of reduced purchasing power for workers. That's why there's so much debt. Labor-saving technology literally tripled production output while cutting labour requirements by 1/3. Did our prosperity increased by 2/3? Where are working hours cut by 2/3? No, because everything the workers produce belongs to someone like Bill Gates.
There's a socially on bread factory where the assembly line workers make $70,000 per year. However, an assembly line worker at Walmart or Amazon is lucky if they make more than minimum wage. You see, it doesn't matter if they produced $70,000 worth of product or 70 billion. It All Belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours under capitalism.
Socialism is freedom. It's extremely Democratic because one worker equals one vote. When you're unemployed a capitals company you have no voting power at all. Socialism is freedom because when you own the product of your labour then labor-saving technology actually reduces your workload while increasing your prosperity. When you don't own the product of your labour you were basically human livestock. That's why they call it wage slavery. For example, if you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production the cow doesn't get twice the amount of milk. It doesn't get twice the amount of income. It doesn't get to work half as many hours. All the milk belongs to the farmer. That's why capitalist support capitalism because it gives them the power and the wealth. It also gives them the power to control the government. Under capitalism the government is nothing more than an extension of the capitalist class. Under capitalism the government represents the owning class. Not the working class. The working class has to fight for Privileges and protections under the law. They have to fight for the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, child labour laws, Etc. That's all slaves can do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joseperez2515 , you honestly don't think that capitalism amplifiers greed? Actually, human beings are not naturally greedy. Human beings are naturally gregarious. We're collectivist by Nature. Our ability to cooperate is what allowed us to survive so long. That's also why were so naturally sensitive to being ostracized. Back in the time of the cognitive Revolution, 70,000 years ago, if you were ostracized from the group, it would be a death sentence. But if you take human beings and you put them in a competitive environment and an environment of extreme inequality, then yes, Homo sapiens become greedy, depressed, less empathetic and even vicious. People are, for the most part, a product of their environment. Capitalism is one of the most destructive, immoral and wasteful systems ever devised. I would recommend reading a textbook called psychology applied to Modern Life. You can get it online second-hand relatively cheap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joseperez2515 , the government is controlled by the rich. It's always been that way right from its Inception. Actually, one of the key roles of the capital of government is to protect the owning class from the working class.
What you described does not capitalism. People have been producing things, Trading, selling things long before capitalism was invented. Capitalism is only about 290 years old. It didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement. The conversion to capitalism was extremely bloody and violent.
racism and greed are tied to capitalism. You can't get rid of greed and have a capitalist system. That's not possible. the main imperative of capitalism is maximization of capital accumulation. there have been social experiments done we're even when people play the Monopoly board game they become greedy and competitive.
Some quotes regarding labour history:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
"The capitalist revolution instituted a crucial change from price to wage. When the producer sold his product for a price, Ware writes, “he retained his person. But when he came to sell his labor, he sold himself,” and lost his dignity as a person as he became a slave — a “wage slave,” the term commonly used. Wage labor was considered similar to chattel slavery, though differing in that it was temporary — in theory. That understanding was so widespread that it became a slogan of the Republican Party, advocated by its leading figure, Abraham Lincoln."
"There are serious barriers to overcome in the struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity, even beyond the bitter class war conducted ceaselessly by the highly class-conscious business world with the “indispensable support” of the governments they largely control. Ware discusses some of these insidious threats as they were understood by working people. He reports the thinking of skilled workers in New York 170 years ago, who repeated the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery and warned perceptively that a day might come when wage slaves “will so far forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect.” They hoped that that day would be “far distant.” Today, signs of it are common, but demands for independence, self-respect, personal dignity, and control of one’s own work and life, like Marx’s old mole, continue to burrow not far from the surface, ready to reappear when awakened by circumstances and militant activism."
https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other-people-class-war-in-the-united-states/
"Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery."
https://chomsky.info/20141201/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"As I mentioned, public mass education was a major achievement, in which the US was a pioneer. But it had complex characteristics, rooted in the sharp class conflicts of the day. One goal was to induce farmers to give up their independence and submit themselves to industrial discipline and accept what they regarded as wage slavery. That did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders of his day were calling for popular education. He concluded that their motivation was fear. The country was filling up with millions of voters and the Masters realized that one had to therefore “educate them, to keep them from (our) throats.”"
https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/
Adam Smith:
"People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
• Noam Chomsky (1995) Class Warfare, p. 19-23.
From <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith>
"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war." ~
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations page 410 http://www.ultimorecurso.org.ar/drupi/files/Adam%20Smith%20%27The%20Wealth%20of%20Nations%27.pdf
Big Ideas that Changed the World. https://youtu.be/o8KOUrVxYiw
▪︎ Myth of the founding fathers https://youtu.be/5UUKj-7_9rU
1
-
@joseperez2515 , you're not supposed to believe what people say. Politics, economics and science has nothing to do with belief and faith. Chomsky always points out that you should never believe what he says. You're supposed to substantiate and understand the information for yourself.
Capitalism is extremely undemocratic and it's based on exploitation. Consider the lives of slaves in the Antebellum South. Their conditions continuously got better. Is that a justification for slavery? Capitalism is another form of slavery. You don't want to abolish it, just regulate it?
It's really fascinating that you don't understand how capitalism perpetuates greed. I find that amazing. Are you really unaware that capitalism rewards cutthroat greedy Behavior while actually punishing moral individuals that have a conscience? Why do you think we're in such a mess today? Overtime the greediest, most cutthroat people end up rising to positions of power and accumulating massive amounts of money. https://vimeo.com/359915217?ref=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR00I3Pt3z3bkof-zx5JFb3EZhKfeld5jtsNOL-D3qgFb_cxkOVYKOT-Jzw
also, capitalism does not account for externalities. It Is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised. It doesn't supply-demand, it supplies what people can afford. You understand what the implications of that are? I'm just giving you a few examples. There's no justification for this type of economic system. We don't need it.
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
"It is reliably estimated that species extinctions now proceed at 1000 time times their normal rate, and that up to 99% of the materials used in the US production process end up as waste within 6 weeks. For every ton of garbage, in turn, there are 5 tons of materials to produce it, and 25 tons extracted from nature to yield these materials.
But these facts are not connected across the fields of expertise which track them. As the earth is thus stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, the market paradigm of value that leads governments does not factor into its calculus the countless life forms, habitats and systems which are thus extinguished and poisoned. When objections are raised, the followers of the paradigm that rules sternly warn that all is necessary ‘to keep the economy going’. Peoples increasingly observe that their life-ground is being devastated, but no ‘new discovery’ reports that every step of decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market programme."
At this stage of the global market system’s reproduction of transnational money sequences to unheard-of volumes and velocities of transaction and growth, a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, and do not avoid or deny the symptom profile in evidence, we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization.
There are seven defining properties of a cancer invasion which medical diagnosis recognizes at the level of the individual organism. These seven properties can now be recognized for the first time at the level of global life-organization as well. And this is the pathological core of our current disease condition.
That is, there is:
(1) an uncontrolled and unregulated reproduction and multiplication of an agent in a host body; that
(2) is not committed to any life function of its life-host; that
(3) aggressively and opportunistically appropriates nutriments and resources from its social and natural hosts in uninhibited growth and reproduction; that
(4) is not effectively recognized or responded to by the immune system of its hosts; that
(5) possesses the ability to transfer or to metastasize its growth and uncontrolled reproduction to sites across the host body; that
(6) progressively infiltrates and invades contiguous and distant sites of its life- hosts until it obstructs, damages and/or destroys successive organs of their life-systems; and that
(7) without effective immune-system recognition and response eventually destroys the host bodies it has invaded.
John McMurtry
1
-
@joseperez2515 , capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with sharing the wealth. Capitalism is what the maximization of capital accumulation. It's the idea that the wealth producing technology and resources should go to the highest bidder. Everyone else to pay rent and usage fees. That's what capitalism is about. Even Albert Einstein considered it to be the main source of evil in the world. It is based on exploitation and is extremely undemocratic. That's not my opinion, that's a matter of fact.
You don't need capitalism in order to have a business, to have a market, have people producing things, have people selling and trading with one another, Etc. Socialism has all the advantages of capitalism without any of the negatives. Under capitalism the richest members of society get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc.
When the billionaires own Capital, they get most of the wealth produced by labour. When the workers own and control Capital, they get most of the wealth produced by their labour, and that's how it should be.
All wealth comes from mixing labour with capital. People should only be entitled to the well that they generate with their own work. Labour includes both mental and physical efforts. So who are the wealth producers? They're the scientist, the engineers, mechanics, plumbers, Carpenters, Millwrights, Etc.
under the capitalist system most of the wealth does not go to the actual wealth producers, it goes to the parasites. Even with modern technology there is a limit how much labour energy can be converted to wealth. it is not possible for someone to convert their labour energy into a billion dollars in one lifetime. Anytime you have someone extracting more than they contribute, it has to come at the expense of someone else. Capitalism is the economic system of the ruling class and parasites.
at a socialist company the workers are doing their own work. they're not paying someone else to do the work for them. They're not selling the product of someone else's labour and keeping most of the wealth for themselves.
why do you think it is that we still have the 8 hour work day even though productivity has more than doubled since 1950? it's because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital, not the workers. if you take 50% of the honey from a beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken. They're being capitalized on. it's the same thing when it comes to cattle. If a farmer gives a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production the cow doesn't get to work half as many hours. You have a far more than ends up with twice the amount of milk. However, if the cow is free and it produces twice as much milk, it goes to the cow.
the largest Cooperative in Spain did 25 billion dollars in sales last year. That 25 billion goes to the workers. The workers are doing their own work. When a capitals company does that amount of sales, most of that money goes shareholders.
capitalism violates basic economic and market principles. One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. You can't have an economic system where you're maximizing production while simultaneously eroding the purchasing power of workers. if workers cannot afford the goods and services are producing, the economy retracts. If you increase the purchasing power of workers then the economy expands. Socialism doesn't have those contradictions.
1
-
@joseperez2515 , I have no idea what you're talking about. Of course capitalists want to create monopolies. Consider the Monopoly board game. Why do you think it got its name? Why do you think so many antitrust laws were enacted? Monopolies form under capitalism very very quickly without government intervention. There's nothing natural about capitalism that's against Monopoly formation. I'm really not sure where you got your ideas about capitalism from. Capitalism is about extracting profit from capital. It's about the maximization of capital accumulation. Just like in the Monopoly board game.
Here's a quote from political science teacher Michael parenti.
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
I would recommend that you study the subject. Here's a PDF file to a political science textbook. I don't think it's the latest edition, but it's close enough.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e0185311e0373308494e5b6/t/5e0828ef1b797629a17e743e/1577593079187/parenti_democracy_for_the_few.pdf
I would also recommend reading:
• (Beaud 2001) , History of Capitalism https://archive.org/details/historyofcapital00mich
• capitalism by Paul Bowles https://tinyurl.com/y6xqz7cw
• Kang (2002) https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/crony-capitalism/CA0963DEB09F9EBE61068CC32D97217C
• Economics for everyone http://economicsforeveryone.ca/
• Haber (2002) https://tinyurl.com/y27q276j
• https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8155/3fe609d9276f97e6880939a4bea11ee11b24.pdf
• Hodges (2001) https://networks.h-net.org/node/10670/reviews/10860/windrich-hodges-angola-afro-stalinism-petro-diamond-capitalism
• https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9442/c3ebec0e121bfe293b093271a738bf0eedf7.pdf
• Schiller (1999). https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digital-capitalism
• Robbins (2002) https://tinyurl.com/yxoyxbv2
• Heilbroner (1985) https://www.questia.com/library/102437159/the-nature-and-logic-of-capitalism
• McQueen (2001) https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Essence_of_Capitalism.html?id=OwQ8HAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
• De Soto (2000) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2698525?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
▪︎ O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0415241878. Market socialism is the general designation for a number of models of economic systems. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/11004612
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-8476-7396-4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-efficiency-and-the-market-9780198285335
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. p. 142. "It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital." https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16915671?q&versionId=19853882
I would recommend reading these two books. In my opinion, these are required reading.
1. Psychology applied to Modern: Life adjustment in the 21st century. Take a look at the table of contents and other features. You should be able to get it relatively cheap second-hand. As far as textbooks go, it's an easy and enjoyable read. https://www.cengage.co.uk/books/9781285459950
2. Economics for everyone. http://economicsforeveryone.ca/
The "psychology applied to Modern Life" will help you master these skills: https://youtu.be/6OLPL5p0fMg
1
-
1
-
@joseperez2515 , no. That's not how I view it. I'm not giving you my opinion. 😀 there are assertions, opinions and facts. It's really important to be able to differentiate between them. I really find it amazing that you do not understand that capitalism is both immoral and undemocratic. That's not an opinion.
Socialism is a democratic, bottom-up system of social organization. Capitalism is a hierarchical, top-down system. Instead of having one worker equalling one vote (socialism), you have one share equalling one vote. Do you think you can purchase more shares than someone like Donald Trump or Bill Gates? Those with the most shares get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, the environment workers have to labour in, Etc. Under capitalism control and the resources end up in the hands of the richest members of society. Those people get most of the wealth that's produced by Labour even though they don't produce anything themselves. That is immoral. When workers own and control their own labour and resources, they get most of the wealth that is produced by their labour.
If you build a chair and you sell it for $100, you now have $100. but under capitalism most of the population on Earth is in a state of dependency. Because they don't own capital they actually have to build that chair for someone else. that another person then sells the product of their labour and keeps most of the money. Again, that is immoral. Capitalism is the idea that you don't have to work for an income. it's the idea that you shouldn't work for money, you should make your money work for you. You understand what that means? When you extract wealth from Capital without working, you are exploiting those people that do work. do you not understand that exploitation is wrong? Do you even know the difference between right and wrong?
Don't you understand that jobs are tied to consumption? how are people supposed to be able to buy the goods and services they are producing if they don't get paid the full value of their labour? don't you understand that not only is capitalism immoral, it doesn't even make any sense. it violates basic market and economic principles.
For example, 1. consider bee keepers. They extract more value from the bees than they contribute. If they take 50% of the honey, the bees have to work 50% longer to replace what was taken. 2. Land lords extract more value from their tenants than they contribute. Do you want to put your paycheck toward owning your own home, or would you rather help the landlord pay for his? People rent when they have no other alternative. That's also why people work for places such as walmart and amazon. Landlords and capitalist corporations are dependent on workers having no viable alternative. 3. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone to double milk production, does that result in the cow having to work half as many hours? No. But under socialism it would, because the milk would belong to the cow. this is why we had the advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction in working hours. You see, it's not possible for a single person to convert one hour of labor into a million dollars. Capitalist extract wealth from other people's labor energy the way farmers extract milk and honey.
If you work in a TV factory you might help produce a thousand TVs a day. But at the end of the day you won't earn enough to even purchase one TV. So if workers are constantly producing more than they can afford to consume, how do we maintain jobs through consumption? then, to make matter even worse, what happens if technology doubles the output of those TVs? Now two thousand TV are being produced in the same amount of time with the same number of workers! The market was already saturated with one thousand TVs. Now you have two thousand! Do you fire half of your labor force? Under socialism this situation would be a good thing. Instead of firing half the workers, you now have twice as many workers to share in the remaining work load! Therefore you only have to work 4 hours a day instead of 8. But under capitalism half the workers get fired, where they have to compete for the ever decreasing jobs that are available. That competition drives down the value of labor and purchasing power even further. And then when people borrow money, more purchasing power is lost because there is interest. That's why we still have the forty hour work week. And of course a debt and consumption based systems are going to be prone to recessions.
1. Human labour vs non human labour: timeline
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153298798340618&set=a.10150253409725618&type=3&theater
2 consequence of number 1: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158829702820618&set=a.10150253409725618&type=3&theater
3..Producing more with less labor: Because all the milk belongs to the farmer, the service sector had to expand to keep people working. Under capitalism it doesn't matter how much productivity increases, it all belongs to the owner. Works live from check to check, they are dependent on 40 working hours.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152432273700618&set=a.10150253409725618&type=3&theater
4.. Fractional reserve banking to maintain consumption and jobs: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153526107930618&set=a.10150253409725618&type=3&theater
You think wage slavery is moral but chattel slavery is immoral? Seriously? Just because the slaves are given coupons so that they can actually buy back a small portion of what they produce and they can actually choose who their exploiters are, you think they're free?
If you take honey from a beehive and then sell the product of their labour so that you can reduce the amount of Labor that you have to do, is that moral? You could work for $10 or you could sell $10 worth of honey.
people should only be entitled to the wealth they generate with their own labour. No one should be entitled to someone else's labour energy. we're not just talking about stealing other people's wealth, we're talking about stealing Hours from people's lives! Do you understand?
1
-
@joseperez2515 , would you say that it's an opinion that chattel slavery is a moral? most people now think that slavery is immoral. is it really immoral or is that just an opinion? 😀
look, I'm sorry that you don't understand how and why socialism is immoral. There are many people that have Explain how and why. From Albert Einstein to Noam Chomsky, these people have gone into great detail. I recommend that you study their work and do your best to try to comprehend what I'm saying. Stealing hours from people's lives is immoral. Stealing someone else's wealth is immoral. When you take the milk from a cow, it is immoral. The milk belongs to the cow. Do you understand the difference between right and wrong? When you take the honey from the bees and sell it to reduce your own labour requirements, it is immoral. That honey belongs to the bees! They worked for it. It is theirs. You have no right to it! Do you understand? You remind me of those types of individuals that didn't understand how and why chattel slavery was immoral. It truly is amazing. You have no right to what someone else produces. Capitalism is one of the most immoral systems ever developed and you are not even aware of it. You don't understand how and why. Amazing! 😀 capitalism is truly repugnant and disgusting. In a lot of ways even more so than chattel slavery. Reducing human beings to livestock is extremely immoral and Adam Smith even predicted that doing so would result in human beings becoming so dumbed down that they would be practically mine was vegetables. Of course you never read The Wealth of Nations, if you had, I probably would need to have to explain all this to you. Also, capitalism is undemocratic. Try to think about why it is impossible to have a capitalist democracy. socialism is a bottom-up, democratic system. And that's how things should be. a capitalist company is literally a dictatorship. Here is an example of a socialized Democratic workplace. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ the workers do their own work. They don't pay other people to do the work for them.
it's truly amazing that you don't understand that it's wrong and repugnant to live off of someone else's labour. It's disgusting. 😀 oh well. Maybe one day you'll understand. And you know what's funny? Many of the ruling class actually believe that because people like you don't understand that it's wrong, they believe that it's justification for exploiting you. they say they give meaning to your life by providing you with a job and a sense of self-worth. 😀 you should read it. It's hilarious!
Oh, and here is a political science textbook on PDF. I would highly recommend that you study it in detail. and then, maybe, just maybe, you'll understand why you can never have a capitalist democracy. Maybe you'll understand why capitalism is extremely undemocratic and immoral. But I won't hold my breath. if you read it, get back to me and let me know what you think.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e0185311e0373308494e5b6/t/5e0828ef1b797629a17e743e/1577593079187/parenti_democracy_for_the_few.pdf
1
-
@vacpsi5466 , no I'm not retracting anyting. Capitalist or no longer working people to death because the labour movement was able to win protections on the law that prevented them from doing that. have any idea how many women and children have been burned alive in the United States because they were locked into the factories they are working at? Billionaires can literally afford to hire millions of people and get them to do their bidding. They have more power than Kings in a lot of ways. as a consequence you now have most things made in China , wages so low that most people can no longer afford a family on a single income, 80% of the population subsists on less than $10 a day, and a massive number of people that are dependant upon employment at Sweatshop factories for minimum wage. There are numerous incidences of workers at us factories urinating under the assembly line because there are not allowed enough washroom breaks. you have Amazon employees wear diapers out of fear they might piss themselves.
But anyway, capitalism is a religion. It is an immoral system. It is based on exploitation. It allows people to own for a living rather than working for a living. And anytime you have money going to someone who doesn't contribute, it has to come at the expense of someone else. it is the economic system of parasites. Billionaires can buy electrical companies, railroads, grocery stores apartment buildings, and then accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars from other people's labour. It is insane. why do you think we're still working 40 hours a week? Why do you think the cost of living is so hot? We shouldn't be working 40 hours a week in this day and age.
we work this hard and so many hours so that we can have a billionaire class that can live in extreme luxury without having to do any work at all. The system is designed to transfer wealth from those who work to those who don't.
for example, if you win enough money playing the lottery, you'll never have to work again. Your family will never have to work again. Your children and your children's children will never have to work again. Any woman that you have a relationship with will never have to work again.
For example, there is a person who won the lottery last year where i live. he won 60 million dollars. That money is currently sitting in a bank account. He is getting 3% interest on that 60 million.
That comes to 1.8 million dollars a year.
That's $150,000 per month.
That's $35,000 per week.
that's $5,000 a day.
That's $200 an hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year, for the rest of their life, until the day they die. and they will pass that privilege onto every child they have and every woman that they marry.
now let's look at Jeff Bezos. He has about 200 billion dollars now. So, hypothetically speaking, if he were to dump all of his Capital assets and just put that money into the bank account at 3% interest, he would be accumulating 6 billion dollars per year for doing absolutely nothing.
That's 500 million dollars a month.
That's a 115 million dollars per week.
That's 16 and 1/2 million dollars per day.
that's 685,000 per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
How long does it take you to use the washroom? Let's say it takes you 1 minute to take a dump. by the time Jeff Bezos takes a dump, he has an extra $12,000 in his bank account. 😃
where do you think that money comes from? Every dollar of that has to come from labour. Every time you take out a student loan, every time you buy toilet paper, a toothbrush, finance a house, a car, Etc. you have to pay some rich individual for that privilege. He gets to collect that amount of money without doing any work at all. And, unless he's actually capable of spending $600,000 an hour, with every passing hour, he'll be making more money than he did before. it's insane to have all these people that can accumulate thousands of dollars an hour while sleeping, playing golf, using the washroom, Etc. If you don't think that's the lifestyle of a king, well then that's a very interesting opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke , I didn't say that I got my understanding of Economics from the Monopoly board game. I said the reason the Monopoly board game was invented was to demonstrate how capitalism worked. Yes, it's extremely over simplified, but at the core, that's exactly how capitalism works! The core concept of capitalism is the maximization of capital accumulation. That's not an opinion. 😃
Let's take a look at some textbooks that explain this in detail.
• (Beaud 2001: 41) , History of Capitalism: 1500-1980
• capitalism ( history/analysis) by Paul Bowles .
• O'Hara, Phillip (September 2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume2. Routledge.
▪︎ Buchanan, Alan E. (1985). Ethics, Efficiency and the Market. Oxford University Press US. pp. 104–105.
▪︎ Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century.
Capitalism:
A system of economic production whereby business owners (capitalists) acquire the means of production (capital) and hire workers who get paid for their labor.
Main Characteristics of Capitalist Economies
• Two-Class System.
• Private Ownership.
• Profit Motive.
• Competition.
• The Bottom Line.
• Workers do not own the product of their labour. Total output produced by workers is immediately and automatically the property of the employers.
There are two key features that make an economy capitalist:
1. most production of goods and services is undertaken by privately owned companies, which produce and sell their output in hopes of making a profit. This is called production for profit.
2. Most work in the economy is performed by people who do not own their company or their output, but are hired by someone else to work in return for a money wage or salary. This is called wage labor.
An economy in which private, profit-seeking companies undertake most production, and in which wage earning employees do most of the work, is a capitalist economy. These twins features - profit-driven production and wage labor - create particular patterns and relationships, which in turn shaped the overall functioning of capitalism as a system.
Any economy driven by these two features - production for profit and wage labor - tends to replicate the following trends and patterns, over and over again:
- fierce competition between private companies for markets, sales, and profit.
- innovation, as companies constantly experiment with new technologies, new products, and new forms of organisation - in order to succeed in that competition.
- An inherent tendency to growth, resulting from the desire of each individual company to make more profit.
- Deep inequality between those who own successful companies, and the rest of society who do not own companies.
- A general conflict of interest between those who work for wages, and the employers who hire them.
- Economic cycles or roller coasters, with periods of strong growth followed by periods of stagnation or depression : sometimes these cycles even produce dramatic economic and social crisis.
What is the difference between a capitalist company & a socialist company?
1. Socialist companies are cooperatively owned.
Capitalist companies are privately owned.
2. At socialist companies there is no employee-employer dynamic.
The workers are their own bosses. They all get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, etc.
3. At socialist companies workers own the product of their labour.
At capitalist companies workers do not own the product of their labour, everything they produce belongs to someone else.
4. Organization is either bottom up or horizontal.
Capitalism is a hierarchical, top-down system of organization.
5. Socialist companies are democratic.
Capitalist companies are extremely undemocratic; you do what you're told, or else!
6. The workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour for profit.
7. Equality: at socialist companies everyone is equal in terms of voting power. One share equals one vote.
At a capitalist company workers don't have any voting power at all. That's why during the labour movement so many people fought and died for the right to unionize.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
▪ Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
▪ Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
▪ Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. /business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪ Study number 5: The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
adaa. org/ workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
w w w .un.o r g/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace . pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
/reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL. pdf
1
-
1
-
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Downhaven , and what about the Richard Wolff Gene Epstein debate? Richard Wolff come across as fanatical?
What was the criteria of the debate? What was the objective? The debate, as described in the title, was to determine which system produces the most equality, freedom and prosperity.
Did Epstein have a single, solitary counter-argument? No. He didn't have one.
There was nothing fanatical that Richard Wolff said. That debate was about as open and shut as you could possibly get.
▪ do workers have more freedom when they own the company and are their own boss? Yeah, obviously!
▪ do workers have more prosperity, for themselves and the economy and community when they actually get all of the wealth of their labor produces? Yeah, obviously. When workers own the product of their labour, if they produce a million dollars worth of product, they now have a million dollars. That means a million dollars worth of purchasing power. But if workers at Amazon or Walmart produce a million dollars worth of product, the workers have minimum wage. So which worker provides more demand in the economy? Again, very simple and straightforward.
▪ and which mode of production provides more equality? Obviously when workers own their own company or factory and each individual has equal voting power, they're going to have more equality then compared to a capitalist company. At a capitalist company you don't have any voting power at all! You have to do what you're told. We're talking about a dictatorship that makes Nazi Germany look like a vacation. The boss decides when you work, how hard you have to work, what you have to wear, even if you have to keep a smile on your face all day, if and when you get a coffee break, what time you get to eat your lunch, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom!
So what was Gene Epstein's counter-argument to any of those criteria? Nothing! Didn't have a single argument. He just kept making excuses for capitalism. So who's being fanatical? 😃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@okiedoke6373 , of course the problem is capitalism. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. That is a plutocracy. They get most of the wealth produced by Labour and they get to make most of the decisions when it comes to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why wages are so low and why most things are made in China. Under capitalism the government represents the capitalist class. if they want to cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes for the workers, they can do it. If they want to print money, they can do it. The founding fathers were very clear that the country should be controlled by those who own it. That's one reason why people without property couldn't vote. They were very clear that the working-class should remain as nothing more than spectators.
the corruption in the government is what happens during the late stages of capitalism. as concentration of wealth and power accumulates, you move further and further to the right side of the political Spectrum. eventually you end up making the transition to fascism. you have private companies owning the media, social networks, Pharmaceuticals, Insurance, Etc. capitalism is the real-life Monopoly game. of course capitalism is the problem. it's the economic system of parasites. https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
1
-
@okiedoke6373 , well it's good that you can make money doing welding. but that's not capitalism. Capitalism involves capitalizing on other people's labour. When you're doing your own work, that's not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and sell them in the market, that's not capitalism. If you write a book and sell it in the market, that's not capitalism. When workers own a factory and run it collectively, doing their own work, then that's a form of Socialism. Now hypothetically speaking, if those workers were to go home and hire other people to do the work for them, maybe paying them half of the money that their labour produces, then they would be engaging in capitalism. That's the key difference.
You see, capitalist will try to get as many employees as possible, getting them to do as much work as possible while paying them as little as possible. You see, the idea is, hypothetically speaking, if you can get a million employees and you can make a dollar off of each employee per hour, then you can technically make a million dollars per hour without doing any work.
having a business is good. being productive and selling the product of your labour is good. You're being able to make money welding, that's great! You're going around, helping people, providing a valuable service, that's how things should be.
in regards to your health care, that's not socialism. I mean, don't you have to get insurance from private companies? private companies are capitalist. Americans have to pay private companies a lot of money in the hopes of being covered in the event of an illness. it's kind of like the mob when they would force people The pay money for protection. Americans pay insurance companies for protection and the owners of those companies get filthy rich living off of other people's hard-earned money. It's really disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , can't get anything right? No, that would be you.
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickdesanto6119 , and like I said, capitalism requires there to be more workers than business owners. I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand and comprehend. If it were so easy for a person to be a business owner, then you wouldn't have a situation where 90% of the population doesn't own the product of its labour. Do you have any idea how many Americans work at low-wage positions? Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide on a daily basis because they're stuck in a dead-end job and feel that there's no way out? You just don't get it. What you're saying isn't rational. United States a third-world country for many of its citizens. They come in at number 27 on the social Mobility index where over half the population can't even read above the grade 6 level! And here you are actually believing that anyone can be a business owner. Even if it were possible for 25% of the population become this is owners, you realize how extreme the competition would be? 😀 your average individual not compete with billionaires who can afford state-of-the-art multibillion-dollar technology. Your average person cannot compete with those who can mobilize both labour and production on a global level. Your average individual cannot compete with slave labour from third world countries.
▪︎ The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017. ~
Wall Street Journal
▪ During the last 20 years over 90% of newly created wealth went to the top 1%.
The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
~ Time Magazine
▪ The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ the richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪︎ The number of homeless children in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, according to a recent study by the National Center for Homeless Education. ~2017 stat
▪ The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index! That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! Never mind trying to start a business either cooperatively or individually. That number 27 a person would be lucky just to be able to retire debt free. There's a reason why most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. Anyone can start a business? I think not.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes between 2004 and 2015.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ As of 2020, According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of U.S. adults 16-74 years old - about 130 million people - lack proficiency in literacy, reading below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
▪ 30% of the low-wage workers live below 150% of the federal poverty line, or $36,000 per year for a family of four. 26% receive safety net assistance such as food stamps, welfare benefits, federal housing assistance, and other programs, which have been cut back throughout the years by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.
Millions of workers in “the world’s wealthiest country” are forced to sell their blood in order to survive. The Washington Post featured a 41-year-old teacher with a $50,000 salary who sells plasma twice per week to get by. “I never thought I would be in a position where I would have to sell my plasma to feed my children,” said Christina Seal of Slidell, Louisiana. “I’ve applied for every government program that I can think of. I don’t qualify for food stamps, I don’t qualify for any programs.” The Post explained that plasma donations “have quadrupled since 2006.”
▪︎ more than one-third of us healthcare costs go to bankruptcy!
▪ A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University found 45,000 Americans die each year from preventable causes because they can’t afford healthcare. But, we do have a $1.5 trillion jet fighter that can’t fly in cloudy weather. Go ‘Murcia!
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪︎ Millions of Americans – as many as 25% of the population – are delaying getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs.
▪ more and more Americans are selling their blood for extra money.
over 40 million Americans, many of them full-time workers, require food stamps in order to get enough food to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! When you're desperate enough, you'll even sell your blood!
"With 58% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, corporate America is exploiting poverty through blood and plasma donations while most other countries have banned the practice on ethical and medical grounds."
▪ economic insecurity and workplace stress is destroying the mental health of Americans.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact sheet
▪ and as people become more desperate we see crime rates increasing.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪ The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
1
-
@nickdesanto6119 , no, it's not a lie. Capitalism is a two-class system. It's a very basic fact.
What are the 2 key features that make an economy capitalist?
" 1. production for profit:
most production of goods and services is undertaken by privately owned companies, which produce and sell their output in hopes of making a profit. This is called production for profit.
2. wage labor:
Most work in the economy is performed by people who do not own their company or their output, but are hired by someone else to work in return for a money wage or salary.
The working class makes up about 85%of Society. The top capitalist owners and managers make up roughly 2% of society. They own most of the major capital on the planet.
An economy in which private, profit-seeking companies undertake most production, and in which wage earning employees do most of the work, is a capitalist economy. These twins features - profit-driven production and wage labor - create particular patterns and relationships, which in turn shaped the overall functioning of capitalism as a system.
Capitalism is a system in which the bulk of society's work is done by propertyless labourers who are obliged to sell their labour-power in exchange for a wage in order to gain access to the means of life.
In the process of supplying the needs and wants of society, workers are at the same time and inseparably creating profits for those who buy their labour-power. The production of goods & services is subordinate to the production of capital and capitalist profit. The basic objective of the capitalist system is the production and self-expansion of capital."
You'll notice that the disproportionate ratio between workers and owners remains basically constant. So every time you have a winner, someone who is able to make the transition from worker to owner, somewhere else you have someone else that loses, ends up going from owner to worker.
Everybody can't be an owner. It's mathematically impossible. If you have the option of getting the full value of your labour, are you going to go work for someone like Jeff Bezos? People like Jeff Bezos can become insanely wealthy because there's thousands of people but don't have any other choice but to work for him at low rates of pay.
Why do you think we still have the 40 Hour Work Week after 150 years? Because capitalism creates an environment where almost 90% of the population doesn't own the product of its labour. Just about everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. So it doesn't matter if I machine doubles, triple or quadruple your production output if everything you produce belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours. Owners are always going to be small minority because there's simply not enough of the economic pie left over for the remaining 90%. If you're playing musical chairs with 100 people in 10 of those individuals are controlling 90% of the chairs, then obviously the remaining 90 individuals are not going to be able to find seats. As the remaining seats start to disappear, competition becomes more and more fierce. It's only the big people at the top that are going to survive.
competition -> winners -> competition between winners -> stronger winners -> .. -> big corporations ->
Dude, almost 90% of world stocks is owned by the richest 2% of the population. Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by a very small minority. Capitalism was made possible by the enclosure movement. People had to be driven off of their land separated from their resources before they would submit to wage slavery. In order for capitalism to work, in order for people like Jeff Bezos to have access to an army of low-wage workers, there has to be a lot of people in a state of dependency. It's the only way capitalism can exist.
If you remove that state of dependency, capitalism disappears. As worker-owned companies increased, the cost of wage laborers increases. Eventually people like Jeff Bezos won't be able to make enough profit from labour to keep his business viable. Shareholders are only going to invest when they know they can get more money back in return. If wages become too high, then eventually you hit the ceiling limit in regards to how much wealth can be extracted from labour.
Anyway, Richard Wolff is explaining that it's easier for workers to make the transition to the owning class by working collectively and starting cooperatives. If you can do it as an individual, fine. If not, collectivism is the next best answer. If you still can't make it, then you have to get used to being a wage slave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , I'm going to add your last statement to your list of famous quotes. 😀 I'm actually going make a poll here on YouTube and Facebook on which one of your statements is the dumbest. Would you care to make a bet on which one gets first place?
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam."
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality."
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
You don't understand how social Mobility is calculated. The higher your social Mobility, the more access you have to things such as education and Healthcare. The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index. "Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia"
▪ stating assumptions as fact
James Adams:
" I have definitely study the topics of socialism more than you have."
▪ James Adams:
"of course a free market requires capitalism. Capitalism is not at all antithetical to free markets."
How can you not possibly understand that markets predate capitalism by thousands of years? Seriously? Dude, you have some serious problems
▪ James Adams:
"there's nothing wrong with absolute capitalism"
What is that even supposed to mean? There's nothing wrong with pure, unregulated capitalism? No, of course corporations don't need to be regulated because they never endanger workers, exploit workers, poison the environment, produce dangerous products, would exploit child labour without child labour laws.
▪ James Adams:
"You can only have a free market under capitalism."
In my opinion this comment gets first place for being the dumbest! 😃
▪ James Adams:
"feudalism doesn't fall under the oligarchy category. They had a caste system." 😃😃😃😆
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not right-wing, dumbass. The fascists used collectivism. State ownership. That is socialism by definition. Quit spamming when you can't even get basic definitions right."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalist companies never extract wealth from labour. Quit lying about it."
Cites Koch brother-funded 'Foundation for Economic Education'! aka 'FEE'
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's on the left!"
▪ James Adams:
"Joe Biden is not right wing! He's a leftist! He is center-left!"
Okay. So then where would that leave Bernie Sanders? 😀 how can you be on the left side of the political Spectrum if you're anti-communist and anti-socialist while being pro-capitalist? Again, your comments make absolutely no sense.
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system of organizations. Socialism is top-down."
▪ James Adams:
"under capitalism workers always get paid the full value of their labour."
▪ James Adams:
"workers are never exploited under capitalism."
1
-
@nickdesanto6119 , okay, let me give you an example in order to illustrate my point.
There is a socially owned bread factory in the United States where the assembly line workers make between 65 and $70,000 a year. Why are they able to make so much money when assembly line workers at capitalist companies make minimum wage? It's because they own the product of their labour! If the workers able to acquire labor-saving technology that doubles their production output, they now have twice the amount of money! Or, they can work half as many hours at the same rate of pay.
But if you do not own the product of your labour, then it doesn't matter if labor-saving technology doubles output because everything you produce belongs to someone else.
Now which person is going to create more demand in the economy? The worker with $70,000 worth of purchasing power or the one getting minimum wage?
You see, one of the main goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. You cannot have equilibrium between purchasing power and production output when workers do not get the full value of their labour. If workers produce a million dollars worth of product but only get 50% of the wealth, then they're only going to be able to afford half of what they produced!
Capitalism is actually in direct opposition to the goal of achieving equilibrium. The goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. Profits are maximized by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to produce as much as possible. Therefore the more successful of capitalist company is the list purchasing power workers have. So technically speaking, capitalism is a anti economic system. Why do you think there's so much debt? Why do you think they have to constantly use quantitative easing? Because jobs are tied to consumption. You see, there's a ceiling limit to how much wealth can be extracted from labour.
You see now why there can never be fully employment under capitalism and why you have to have a greater proportion of workers to owners? It's a pyramid scheme. You have to bake a loaf of bread so you that you can afford a slice. 😀 that's why they have to keep raising the ceiling limit on debt in perpetuity. Because capitalism is a pyramid scheme you have to constantly be boring from the future and increasing the amount that you borrow. That's why capitalism is also depended upon constant growth. You can't have constant growth on a finite planet.
Anyway, socialism doesn't have that problem because workers get the full value of their labour. they own the product of their labour. If they create $70,000 worth of product they now have $70,000 worth of purchasing power. You have equilibrium. But at Walmart if workers produce $100,000 worth of product most of that wealth goes to a very small minority while the workers get minimum wage. If the workers actually owned Walmart, they'd all be making roughly around 400,000 a year!
1
-
@ExPwner , you haven't answered my question. How can companies like Wal-Mart, Amazon, Microsoft, how would they be able to exist without wage labour? After two years you haven't been able to answer that question but yet you keep saying that wage labour isn't necessary.
Your comments just get more and more ridiculous with the passage of time. Most people actually learn and become more knowledgeable with the passage of time. Not you.
▪ James Adams: "Capitalism is not a class system you fool! Capitalism does not require wage labour! Quit spamming lies. Reported again for spam."
▪ James Adams:
"Michael J. Mappin, capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or inequality."
▪ James Adams on the social Mobility index:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
You don't understand how social Mobility is calculated. The higher your social Mobility, the more access you have to things such as education and Healthcare. The United States comes in at number 27 on the social Mobility index. "Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia"
▪ stating assumptions as fact
James Adams:
" I have definitely study the topics of socialism more than you have."
▪ James Adams:
"of course a free market requires capitalism. Capitalism is not at all antithetical to free markets."
How can you not possibly understand that markets predate capitalism by thousands of years? Seriously? Dude, you have some serious problems
▪ James Adams:
"there's nothing wrong with absolute capitalism"
What is that even supposed to mean? There's nothing wrong with pure, unregulated capitalism? No, of course corporations don't need to be regulated because they never endanger workers, exploit workers, poison the environment, produce dangerous products, would exploit child labour without child labour laws.
▪ James Adams:
"You can only have a free market under capitalism."
In my opinion this comment gets first place for being the dumbest! 😃
▪ James Adams:
"feudalism doesn't fall under the oligarchy category. They had a caste system." 😃😃😃😆
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not right-wing, dumbass. The fascists used collectivism. State ownership. That is socialism by definition. Quit spamming when you can't even get basic definitions right."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalist companies never extract wealth from labour. Quit lying about it."
Cites Koch brother-funded 'Foundation for Economic Education'! aka 'FEE'
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's on the left!"
▪ James Adams:
"Joe Biden is not right wing! He's a leftist! He is center-left!"
Okay. So then where would that leave Bernie Sanders? 😀 how can you be on the left side of the political Spectrum if you're anti-communist and anti-socialist while being pro-capitalist? Again, your comments make absolutely no sense.
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system of organizations. Socialism is top-down."
▪ James Adams:
"under capitalism workers always get paid the full value of their labour."
▪ James Adams:
"workers are never exploited under capitalism."
t.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shogunisheremistaa3432 , Democratic workplaces don't reward everyone equally. People are rewarded and paid according to their contribution. There is more incentive to be innovative and hard-working at a democratic workplace. That's why, statistically speaking, workers are happier, more productive, more creative, there's more productive and creative synergy, they take less sick days, have less incidence of mental illness, less incidence of substance abuse, etc, etc. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Statistically speaking, socialist companies are more Innovative, workers are more productive, more creative, they're happier, they take fewer sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, mental disorders, stress-related illnesses, Etc.
There's no shortage of data.
▪ The Whitehall study found that workers at the bottom of the social ladder had greater concentrations of stress hormones than their counterparts in higher managerial positions.
▪ In contrast, a survey carried out by The Anxiety Disorder Association of America, in 2006, found that workers were far less stressed and anxious when they had more of a say over their own work.
▪The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
Let's look at some testimony from an extremely successful multi-billionaire business owner that corroborate some of the above statistics
https://youtu.be/35epDjB_7WE
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magiciansway , joke? Anyway, when Richard Wolff talks about socialism, what he's referring to is socially owned workplaces.
There are literally thousands of examples of bottom-up systems of social organization.
Consider the Paris commune, or consider the 135 thousand workers in Spain that own their own bank, means of production, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Etc. One worker equals one vote. It's a bottom-up system.
The workers get paid the full value of their labour and they get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, Etc. They don't have to worry about some CEO or board of directors forcing them to pollute their environment, like what happened in Flint Michigan with the water supply.
They don't have to worry about a dictatorial owner moving production to China! They don't have to worry about Boards of directors cutting their wages in order to increase profits. And because they get paid the full value of their labour, they have a lot more money to spend in to their Community, which means smaller businesses thrive.
in that environment if 50 workers are replaced by automation, you end up with 50 extra workers to share in the remaining workload. but under a capitalist system those 50 workers would end up on the unemployment line where they would have to compete with one another for jobs that are continuously decreasing in number. That competition actually drives down the value of Labor. and that is not conducive to a free market. workers need enough money to actually be able to purchase the very goods and services that they're creating in the first place. That's why capitalism is technically an anti economic system. it's not conducive to free markets. socialism is conducive to free markets and prosperity because wealth actually stays with the wealth producers. that was the argument that Richard Wolff was making.
You see, as things are now, both workers and consumers are depended upon corporations for both jobs and consumer goods. Most of the population on Earth is dependant upon these few people that own these corporations. That's why we're in a situation where we end up doing most of the work but they get most of the money. We need to free ourselves from this state of dependency.
If we start producing our own goods and services and our own jobs, then we can keep wealth where it belongs, with us!
When wealth actually stays with the wealth producers and the community, then workers make more money! And when workers make more money, they can spend more into their communities. So that way you end up with more people with jobs making pizza, cutting hair, bowling alleys, entertainment centres, Etc.
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
1
-
No, his ideas are not Theory. We know exactly how well they work because there are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. Increase in the number of democratic workplaces is not going to result in millions of people being killed. Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from community and worker-owned cooperatives. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from worker cooperatives. Worker cooperatives keep wealth in control with communities and workers. They make them less depended upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. The decentralized power. They make it harder for people to be manipulated and exploited. Workers are the own bosses and they get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces. That's why it's possible for an assembly line worker to make $70,000 a year at a socially owned company but not at a capitalist company. Employees at capitals companies do not own the product of their labour. If they make a million dollars for the product, they've basically made that money for someone else.
China is not capitalist. They have a massive State sector, Cooperative sector and private Enterprises. But all three sectors are strictly controlled by the government.
I have friends that live in China and others that visit on a regular basis.
" I experienced life in China for five years and it opened my eyes. The state controls the banks, telecommunication, heavy industry, construction, etc. The commanding heights. In the big "private" corporations, state and workers representatives have a third of the board. Given the restrictions on individual stock ownership, effective control of management decisions. 70% of investments are all centered on the central plan, which is geared towards social goals and not private accumulation. In the five years I was there real income for workers rose 200%, and the party led campaign lifted over 150,000 people out of poverty. What capitalist nation does that? Organized its economy that way?
Proposed laws are posted online, publicized and mass meetings are held for feedback and amendments. Anyone effected by the laws are reached out to, including expats. YCL people came to my classroom during an off hour to tell me of a proposed new national banking law that would effect we foreigners working in China and asked for any feedback, proposed changes, etc. Is that "Fascism?" Wechat and other social media are often filled with videos and commentary about police behavior, corrupt or bureaucratic officials. Not only is nobody punished, the posts are not even taken down! A Chinese colleague of mine actually posted something sympathetic about the HK protests---not a popular opinion nor one that accorded with the "party line." It was not scrubbed, and nothing happened to him.. I even went to him and asked whether the posts might get him in trouble and he laughed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now?
▪ worker testimony video https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
▪ fact sheet
https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41;30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monkeystank5241 , I did answer your question! Every country that attempted to go socialist was overthrown! For example, the USSR! In 1917 United States, Canada, Britain and Japan sent troops into Russia to stop the workers from achieving their goals! And that's why and how Stalin achieve power! Just since 1945 the United States has bombed over 30 countries. They have attempted to assassinate the leaders of forty countries. Then you have Afghanistan, chili, excetera, excetera. What happened to the Paris commune? That was overthrown!
Venezuela is not socialist. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? something like 80% of the Venezuelan economy and employment is in the private sector! That makes them capitalist! They have a capitalist economy. the United States has been at War with Venezuela for almost 19 years! Their economic problems are largely due to us imperialism! That is a fact! so why in the hell would you pick the least socialist country as an example? if you're going to start referring mixed capitalist economy is as socialism, then you shouldn't be pointing at Venezuela, you should be pointing at Country such as Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Etc.
The USSR was not socialist or communist. the state was in control of capital. when the state is in control of capital, that's what we refer to as state capitalism. calling them socialist or communist would be like calling a meat eater a vegan. Just because Stalin or Hitler call themselves socialists, that doesn't mean they actually are! Words have meaning!
in the USSR and China, did the workers own and control their own resources and labour? did they have a democracy? No! So how can you possibly be calling these places socialist? And another thing, the USSR did not collapse because of their economic system. the country was forced into bankruptcy because they couldn't afford the military spending required to maintain adequate defense against the threat of the United States. Russia did not want to spend most of their money building nuclear bombs and other such weapons on defense! They couldn't afford it. United States with constantly threaten their country, flying bombers into their airspace, Etc. If USSR hadn't have built a massive military and nuclear defense, the United States would have bombed them right back to the Stone Age like they did with Iraq! I'm sure that you're aware at least of that much! So don't tell me that it was their economic system, because that's not true. if you're unaware of these facts, then I suggest you get yourself a library card and do some research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monkeystank5241 , socialism evolve out of the French Revolution. In the French Parliament you had people that sat on the left of the building and people that sat on the right. Those sat on the left were against hierarchy. Those that sat on the right where supporters of hierarchy. Socialism evolved from there. It falls on the left side of the political Spectrum along with anarchism. National socialism, which is a form of fascism, falls on the right side of the political Spectrum. It is the ultimate form of hierarchy. The USSR was not socialist. A socialist hierarchy would be a contradiction in terms. Stalin was a dictator. You can't have a socialist or communist dictator. That would be like having a non-hierarchical monarchy. Monarchies are another form of hierarchy. Hierarchy is what the Socialists and anarchists are against! again, I can sit here and eat meat and call myself a vegan at the same time! But by doing so, I'd be a hypocrite, because those are antithetical terms.
under the Communist system there is no hierarchy, no state, no classes, and no money! Both China and the USSR used money as a tool for social organization. that fact alone disqualifies them from being communist.
socialism and communism are not top down systems. They are bottom up systems. The exact opposite. And that is why they're on the opposite ends of the political Spectrum.
any discussion of fascism must emphasize 7 basic concepts that are found in all fascists.
Irrationalism,
social Darwinism,
nationalism,
the state,
the principle of leadership,
racism,
the corporate economy.
the first two concepts are best seen as basic themes that are rarely explicitly stated but which are part of the other four. All seven of these concepts are intimately interrelated, they cannot be separated from the others. however, it is necessary the analyze them separately to understand them.
irrationalism: the basic assumption is that man is not a rational being. He need not be reasoned with and cannot be reasoned with, he can only be led and manipulated.
social Darwinism: it is the name generally given to social theories that view Life as a struggle for survival within each species as well as between species. In Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection 1859, there is found the statement that life evolves through a struggle for survival between the species. fascists / National socialists applied this idea to their theories of nationalism and race! socialism, on the other hand is Against Racism and class division. the idea is that we are all Brothers and Sisters of the world. Fascism is the exact opposite! They believe that the superior race will eventually dominate, eradicating everyone else, without exception!
Nationalism: it is the most important aspect of national socialism / fascism. all the members of society are supposed to support the state above anything else. an individual is first and foremost a member of the nation to which he gives all of his loyalty, his dedication, and his love.
@Sonny Redlinger , I'm not going to go over the next three elements. Instead I'm going to skip to the final part of the ideology which is the most difficult to understand, The corporate economy. I'll do that later, when I have time. But basically, fascism and capitalism are connected. Socialism, on the other hand, is anti-capitalist. Again, that's why socialism is on the left and both capitalism and fascism are on the far right of the political Spectrum. As capitalism moves further to the right, it eventually transitions into fascism! Fascism is basically late-stage capitalism. Socialism is moving in the opposite direction, toward communism. Again, this is not my opinion. This is well-documented fact, dating back to the French Revolution. Claiming otherwise is both a-historical and empirically false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadjones4255 , capitalism requires a huge amount of government intervention. Otherwise it would self-destruct Within a very short time. The closest we came to having pure capitalism was back in the late 1800s, early 1900s. It was a complete disaster! You had 9-year-old children working 18-hour days, people dying of basic water and food contamination because there were no consumer safety standards, there were no old age pensions, medical, only well to do people could afford to go to school. People like JP morgan, carnegie, rockefeller, these people were making record profits while workers were dying on the job and record numbers, working 18-hour days making just barely enough to survive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadjones4255 , dude, there are no other definitions of capitalism. Capitalism is what it is. It has nothing to do with rights or life. The capitalist imperative is the maximization of capital accumulation. It doesn't matter if you steal, kill, plunder, whatever. It doesn't come with some moral book of rules. During the antebellum South slaves were just another form of capital. Wage slaves are another form of capital.
And yes, when it comes to private property you have to have a massive government apparatus. Why do you think it is that the United States has over a thousand major military bases around the world and 2,000 minor bases? And God only knows how many Lily pads.
Under the capitalist system most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. You can't have 1% of the population owning most of the world without a huge government. It's not possible.
Also you need to differentiate between personal property and private property. Yes, private property is what made capitalism possible in the first place. The enclosure movement put people into an extreme state of dependency where they had no choice but to pay rent and work for the owners of capital in order to survive.
Capitalism is an immoral system that's based on exploitation. Technically speaking, it's an anti-economic system. IT violates basic principles of economics and destroys markets.
For example, the goal of a capitalist company is to maximize profit. If Profit can be maximized by laying people off and destroying lives, then that's what is done. It has nothing to do with morality. In order to be a successful capitalist you have to actually be divorced from morality. There was actually a study done not long ago that showed that individuals that have low levels of empathy, those were the ones that did the best at maximizing profit under capitalism. So is maximizing profit conducive to free markets and Thrive the economies? No. Of course not! One of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. The goal of capitalism is an exact opposition to that basic principle. Profits are maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. So the more successful a capitalist company is at maximizing profit the less purchasing power workers have. That's a contradiction! Why do you think there's so much debt? And you think it is that we still have a 40-hour work week after 150 years even though labor saving technology has more than tripled production output and just the last 20 years?
If you give bovine growth hormone to a cow in order to double milk production, does the cow get twice the amount of milk? Does the cow get to work half as many hours at the same rate of pay? No. Of course not. All of that milk belongs to the farmer. Likewise, under capitalism, everything produced by workers belongs to the owners of capital. So it doesn't matter if labor saving technology quadruples your output. You still remain dependent upon a 40-hour work we can order to survive. 😀
No, I'm not an expert. But I do have a high school level of understanding when it comes to math and political ideologies. LOL
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carbonfibercrypto2919 , what does Albania have to do with worker-owned companies?
Dude, statistically speaking, macaron companies are more productive, more durable, more Innovative, workers are happier, there's less incidence of mental illness, substance abuse, workers take fewer sick days, there's less illness, Etc.
Yeah, when workers get the wealth produced by their labour they spend that money into the economy which creates more demand. People can afford to buy more stuff. People can afford to buy more beer, pizza, coffee, Etc. But when profits are maximized by capitalist companies, workers can afford less. We're talking basic economics here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vitolazlo5767 , socialism is worker and Community ownership of resources and production. Of course socialism is natural. Obviously people should own the product of their labour.
There's absolutely nothing natural about capitalism. there's nothing natural about a system where the richest members of society can basically own most of the resources on the planet while charging the other 96% of the population rent and usage fees. There's nothing natural about a capitalist being able to transfer millions of dollars of Labor energy to himself. people are only capable a producing so much wealth with their labour in a certain amount of time. it's not possible for a person to produce a billion dollars with their labour. even if you could save $100,000 a year, it would still take you no less than 10,000 years to accumulate a billion dollars. capitalism is a religion.
socialism is natural and doesn't violate basic Market in economic principles the way capitalism does. For example, one of the central goals of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. You have to have a balance between supply and demand, just like in nature. Capitalism labour is for profit. Profit is maximized by getting workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. but if most of the wealth is going to the owners of capital rather than the workers, the actual producers, then the workers are not going to be able to afford all the goods and services are produced. For example, if 75% of the wealth goes to the 1%, then the workers are only going to be able to afford 25% of that which they produce. That causes disequilibrium. in order to stop consumption from slowing and jobs being lost, more and more credit has to be pumped into the system. That's why there's so much debt. printing money into existence and constantly raising the debt ceiling will keep the system going temporarily. But ultimately the interest attached to the debt will drive the interest attached to the debt will Erode purchasing power even further in the future. When consumption slows, people get laid off and can't consume. Unemployed people then compete with one another which drives the value of Labor down even further. that erosion of purchasing power has to be offset with even more debt! competing desperate workers then have to work even harder for longer hours for even less money.
so I don't know how you can say capitalism is natural.
keep in mind that capitalism is not merely selling the product of one's labour. if you write a book and sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. people producing things and trading with one another, that is natural. Capitalism is nothing more than a man-made construct that is designed to exploit people and extract value from other people's work.
and socialism is much more efficient than capitalism. Of course it is. capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised. it's actually depended upon things such as planned obsolescence, perceived obsolescence, Etc. when people get sick, capitalist to make a profit. There's an incentive for them to pollute the environment or create illnesses such as diabetes, because they can then sell you the solution. you don't see worker-owned companies polluting their own environment. You don't see worker-owned companies moving production to China. Your position doesn't make any sense. don't see community and worker-owned Banks needing to be bailed out.
1
-
@vitolazlo5767 , you see, the fact that you actually considered capitalism to be natural and socialism to be unnatural, that's a testament to the effectiveness of modern propaganda. Capitalism is literally economic feudalism. It is the economic system of the ruling class and parasites. it's like inventing a rule where blue-eyed people are the ones that get to own most of the wealth producing technology and resources and get to their by collect most of the wealth produced by labour. Yeah, if you are not a blue eyed person and someone told you that, you would naturally tell them to go jump in a lake.
Capitalist propaganda since 1945:
• Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
• Part 2: http://youtu.be/QY8i4JXdpxs
• Part 3: http://youtu.be/fUOqrxrrY0k
• Part 4: http://youtu.be/ZQuPMRnInoY
• Part 5: http://youtu.be/ao0P7_P22BM
• Part 6: http://youtu.be/3433t89k4LY
now if you want to research the science behind the development of modern propaganda, along with who was behind it and where the money came from, I would recommend watching this documentary
"The history and development of social engineering in the 20th century" http://metanoia-films.org/human-resources/
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
1
-
@vitolazlo5767 , dude, socialism is worker ownership. There are hundreds of thousands of democratic workplaces in the United States and around the world. Socialize work places are better for workers and communities. They keep wealth and control with the communities and workers. That is more conducive to a free market and thriving economy. It makes workers and communities less dependant upon billionaire capitalist corporations and government when it comes to jobs and consumer goods. There are regions in Europe where 44% of the GDP come from democratic workplaces. In the United States almost 60% of the country gets its electricity from worker on the electrical cooperatives. We know exactly how well the Socialist mode of production compares to the capitalist mode of production. There is no Theory. There is no hypothesis. We're talking about hard empirical data.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You don't have to wait for the results. There is no shortage of hard empirical data or history to go by in regards to what type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about. For example, let's look at 3 or 4 studies
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , fact of the matter is that if his workers were getting the full value of their labour, he wouldn't be able to become a billionaire because there wouldn't be any profit for him. High profits are depended upon low wages. The less you pay your workers, the more profit you get. The idea behind capitalism is getting the workers to produce as much as possible while paying them as little as possible. Capitalism creates an environment where wages incredibly low. That's why most people have to work 40 hours a week in order to survive. It hasn't been necessary for a very long time now for people to work that long in order to meet all the needs of society. Since at least the fifties he had the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. Industry can't even come close to running at 100% capacity. With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. That creates more and more competition. The workers that get access to the remaining jobs, especially the good jobs that pay and have benefits, are the ones that do the most work for the least amount of money and have the most education. If there were more jobs and fewer workers, that would drive up the cost of Labor.
The only way a worker can get the full value of his labour is what he acts the owns the company or factory that he's working at. For example, let's say you shovel driveways and each driveway is worth $100. But now let's say you want to get someone else to do the work for you. There's lots of poor desperate workers so you pay someone $50 preach driveway they clean on your behalf. You wouldn't be able to pay them the full $100 because if you did, there wouldn't be any profit in it for you. Do you understand? You're able to make $50 profit for each driveway because you're only giving them half of the wealth that they're generating with their labour. That's how capitalism works. The more employees you can get, the more potential profit you can generate. If you can accumulate a million employees that produce $10 worth of profit per hour where you only have to pay them $9 per hour, then technically you can make a million dollars an hour without actually having to do any work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , when it comes to getting the full value of your labour you don't need to worry about calculating how much the labour is actually worth in relation to the capital. Not when you're working at a cooperative. Just like you don't need a union when you're working at a cooperative. When you're an employee, then you do need a union for maximum bargaining power. When you're in Union negotiations, that's when you have to worried about how much a person's labour is worth in relation to the capital.
All you need to understand that it is not possible for a worker to get the full value of their labour when they're working at a capitalist company.
If you're shoveling driveways and each one is worth $100, the only way you can get the full $100 is if you are doing the work yourself. If you paid someone else to do the work for you, you cannot give them $100. If you did, you would be getting no profit. If you can get away with paying them only $50, then you can make $50 profit per driveway. And that's what capitalism is all about. Capitalism requires people to be in a state of dependency. Obviously if you have a choice you're not going to do all of the work for half of the money. Not where you could get all of the money while doing all of the work.
You see, and that's what Richard Wolff is pointing out. If you want the full $100, then you have to do your own work and you have to own your own shovel. The capitalist wants to own all the shovels. That way they can capitalize on other people's labour. The more desperate workers are, the more work you can get them to do while paying them as little as possible. If someone is really desperate, if they're starving and they have no way to get their own shovel, then you might be able to pay them $1 per driveway, getting 99 % profit.
That's how things were back in the days of JPMorgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Etc. That's why those people used to hire private armies to shoot workers that attempted to gain bargaining power through unionization. The Pinkerton assassinating Union organizers and even shooting family members of those who try to organize.
Capitalism didn't exist prior to the enclosure movement because too many people had too many alternatives. People had to be separated from their land and their means of survival before they would accept wage slavery performing other people's work. This history is well-documented.
One of the reasons that capitalist countries bomb and Destroy other countries that try to go socialist is because if you had too many workers figuring out that they don't need capitalists in order to have production and markets, the game would be over.
That's why when the workers actually gained independence in Russia back in 1917, the first thing the United States did is get together with other imperialist countries, Japan, Canada, France. They got together with those countries and sent troops into Russia to crush the workers. The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922.
Anyway, all Richard Wolff is doing is pointing out that cooperatives are a very good strategy for freeing people from their states of dependency. That way, when you do all the work, you can actually get all of the money. That's what he means by full value of one flavour. You get someone to do the work for you, shoveling the driveway, and you give them only $50, then obviously they're not getting the full value of their labour. You get $50 merely from owning the shovel. Your profit is dependant upon that worker being desperate enough to do your work for only half the money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , yes, I already explained that workers have to take their own risks when it comes to starting a business. Of course they do. And of course if you have no problem being just an employee making money for someone else, taking their orders, then that's a good thing.
But of course you don't have to start your own cooperative. If your opportunity presents itself, you can join an existing cooperative. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be making $70,000 a year for putting bread in the bag then creating $100,000 a year for apple or Amazon while getting paid a little more than minimum wage. Me, I prefer to get 100% of the money if I'm doing 100% of the work.
But yeah, Richard Wolff is just simply explaining to people that if they want to be their own boss, if they want to get 100% of the wealth that their labour produces, if they want to have equal voting power compared to not having any voting power at all, then they either have to start their own business as an individual or collectively. That's it. Again, if you want those things. There's lots of people working at capitals companies that are making a six-figure income. So yeah, they're not going to be interested in working at a cooperative. A Cooperative people get paid according to their contribution. That's why you very rarely see the ratio being greater than 7 to 1. That's because regardless of Education, regardless of talent, regardless of how much a person might be a workaholic, in most situations it's not possible for a person to work 7 times harder than someone else. It's not possible for them to be more than seven times more productive.
You see, socialism is more natural because only get the wealth that they produced with their labour. And there's a natural feeling limit to how much wealth you can convert your labour into. Obviously it's not really possible for a person to earn a billion dollars. Even if you could save $200,000 a year, if you could convert that much of your labour energy into well, it would still take you no less than five thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars. You see, that's why people should only be entitled to the wealth that they work for. Basically, the labour theory of ownership. But capitalism defies natural laws and limitations. There's no limit to the amount of other people's labour energy that you can capitalize on. That's why we have a situation where to eat riches people now have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the earth population! The two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. Their poverty, their low wages are what's responsible for do you know he's having so much money. The economic pie can only be so big. And with each passing year a greater percentage of that pie is going to the owners of capital rather than those who work for a living. That's why most people can no longer afford a family on a single income.
Capitalist countries destroy socialist countries because if the workers were ever to become independent, then there wouldn't be anyone to do the work for the capitalists. You would have to shovel your own driveway. There would be no desperate people that you could get to do all of the work while you give them a portion of the money.
That's why the United States trained so many death squads which are used in South America. We managed to achieve the 8-hour day and the 5-day work week over here. The American ruling class has made it really clear that there's no way in hell that they're going to allow other countries to achieve the same thing. And they're certainly not going to allow them to achieve socialism. We can do it over here because we don't have to worry about the United States bombing themselves. All they can do is pay people like Gene Epstein in order to manipulate people. That's why the United States number one when it comes to spending money on propaganda just like their number one when it comes to spending money on the military.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , like I already said, of course people can open up a business under capitalism. Everyone knows that. There were businesses and private property under feudalism, slave societies, Etc.
Your statement doesn't make any sense when you say if that's all it is, did it already exists under capitalism. What exactly you're trying to say? Are you trying to say that if the Cooperative sector gets to a certain size that Richard Wolff is then going to somehow get those individuals to overthrow the government or something? Worker cooperatives decentralise power. They make communities and workers more independent. Independent people are harder to control. Not easier to control. What you're saying simply does not make any sense at all. Richard Wolff never asked you to vote for someone. He's not asking you to give dictatorial powers to someone. He's not asking you to support any form of hierarchical system. He's not asking you to vote for him. So why are you projecting? Why do you keep making blind assumptions when you have no basis for your assumptions at all? Your behaviour is very odd and what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
And yes, for the millionth time, the type of socialism Richard Wolff is talking about Collective worker ownership. That is a fact. Direct Collective worker ownership is a form of Socialism. That is also a fact. I'm not giving you my opinion. Why do I need to keep repeating myself? There's two hundred years worth of literature for you to read.
I'm going to explain this to you again. A capitalist economy is when you have most of the GDP coming from privately-owned companies. If most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned companies, then you'll have a socialist economy.
Worker cooperatives are the perfect example help socialism. Which is direct worker ownership where the workers are doing their own work. I already gave you several definitions from textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias. Socialism can either be State ownership or Collective ownership. Do you understand?
Now do you actually have anything relevant at all in regards to the argument? Are socialist companies better for workers and communities? Do they provide more equality, freedom and prosperity for workers and communities? Yes. They do. Do you have a counter argument? Are you going to just keep talking how about conspiracy theories? Richard wolf must be planning some kind of communist takeover with the government. Yeah, how is he going to do that by making communities and workers more independent by expanding The Cooperative sector? If you're going to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory, you at least have to have some evidence, some basis for your wild assumptions. My advice to you that if one day Richard will suggest that you vote for someone, don't do it. If one day he tries to convince you to remove checks and balances from the government and give dictatorial powers to someone, don't do it. It's simple. There's no need to speculate about what he might be planning in the future. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but when you talk like that you sound just like Fox News and Alex Jones. It's silly.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , and again, you work as an employee you do not get the full value of your labour. The only way workers can get the full value of their labour is if they owned the tools that they're using. I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand?
If you shovel driveways for $100 and you do the work yourself, you get the full $100. However, if you pay someone to do the work for you, then you cannot pay them the full $100 for each driveway. If you did, there would be no profit for you. The person you're paying is doing all of the work but not getting all of the money.
Likewise, when you work as an employee at a capitalist company, you have to produce more than what you get paid for. So that is why so many workers prefer socialized workplaces. They get paid the full value of their labour. Do you understand?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. I really don't know what to tell you if you can't understand what Richard Wolff is saying. You think he's crazy? You think after 3 quarters of a century teaching economics he doesn't know what he's talking about? You think he has these very basic principles wrong? You think you know more than he does? Oh no, you think there's some kind of conspiracy where if he gets his way and people actually form more Cooperative, that's going to allow him to somehow take over the world.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , why do you keep talking about running away? My God you certainly are one per Sumptuous individual. You make assumptions about me, what I'm doing, what I'm thinking, you make assumptions about Richard Wolff, what he's planning, conspiracies, Etc.
Of course when you shovel the driveway you have expenses. Why would you State something so ridiculous? It doesn't matter whether a company is privately owned or collectively owned. Obviously profits come after expenses. You think worker-owned companies don't have overhead? What are you talkin about?
Again, if you pay someone else to do the work for you, you cannot give them the full $100. If you did there wouldn't be any profit. Can you understand? That's why so many workers are trying to achieve socialism. They don't want to do all of the work unless they get all of the money. They don't want to do all work shoveling the driveway while you get 50% of the money because you own the shovel. Do you understand? Now do you have an argument or not? Because so far you haven't made any arguments and you're not making any sense. Thing over and over again there's nothing stopping you from buying a shovel, that is not an argument. That does not negate the fact of why people want to own their own shovel. You're very good at constantly jumping from one non-argument to another. One non sequitur after another.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , sometimes you need a Visionary like Steve Jobs at the top of the pyramid to give direction. Okay, so what? Steve Jobs can do whatever he wants with his company. It's his company. Like why is he can arrange the furniture in his home anyway that he wants to. It's his home and his furniture. If worker-owned companies can't do as well as Microsoft, or Apple, well then, I guess they'll just have to cope. Want to have an argument and a debate about Steve Jobs's company is going to be bigger, better and stronger than any worker cooperative? Yeah, maybe. But who cares? What does that have to do with anything? If the Cooperative sector increases, that's going to create more for workers. That means wages go up. If most of the market is dominated by capitalist corporations, that drives wages down work because workers have to compete with labor-saving technology.
You think if every worker had the option of getting the full value of their labour they would actually work for capitalist company such as Walmart or Amazon? Yeah sure, people love doing more work for less money, less control, where they have to follow orders and be under constant threat of being fired or demotion. Employers have a lot of power over their employees. That's why unionization and employment laws are so important. Most employers don't have any trouble using their power in order to exploit the environment and workers.
Again, you have so many workers that prefer socialism because don't want to be wage slaves. They don't want to work in a dictatorship and they don't want to lose many years of their life making money for other people. Just like with the driveway analogy, people like Donald Trump love living in a world where they can just get other people to do all the work for them so they can spend all of their time living. The person who asked to work extra hours in order to makeup for capitalist profit and people like Donald Trump, they get to live fewer hours. So yeah, that should really anger you. You should be really disgusted by parasitism.
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , let me give you another example. Socialized housing. If you're living in a private apartment building, having to pay a landlord, every extra dollar that goes to him is one less dollar you have for yourself. It's also one less dollar you'll have to spend into the economy. And that's causing a serious problem from an economic standpoint. But anyway, when you own the house collectively, just like when you own the company collectively, then you're paying for things at cost. You're no longer paying for your landlord's lifestyle. You're just paying for the cost of the materials that went into building the home. You pay for the labour that constructed your home. Then you pay for the maintenance. Etc. You're getting the full value of your labour because you're at cost. No one is profiting off of your labour. Now just like with worker cooperatives make it easier for people to start their own private businesses, when you have Cooperative housing, when you're paying at cost, money that would normally be going to your landlord, you can now use that toward purchasing your own home. That's why socialism is good for workers and bad for parasites.
So that's the difference between capitalism and socialism. socialism is for workers. Socialism is about working for a living and keeping what you work for. Capitalism is about owning for a living and accumulating wealth without working. Socialism is a natural system of organization. The only thing natural about capitalism is the aspect of its parasitism.
So again, when you work as an employee, it is impossible for you to get the full value of your labour because if you did, there would be no profit for the owner. This is what Richard Wolff is explaining. If you're happy being exploited or you need a structured environment where someone tells you what to do and how to do it, then maybe you might prefer capitalism. There were many house slaves at preferred slavery to going back to Africa. So, each to their own. But at least now I hope you understand why so many people prefer socialism over capitalism. Richard Wolff is pointing out that cooperatives are a good strategy and increase your chances of being able to extricate yourself from your slavery / exploitation. He's not suggesting that you go steal someone else's toothbrush, he's talking about collectively getting together with people so you can get your own toothbrushes. If you own your own toothbrush, that you don't have to worry about renting one from a capitalist. 😃
Can you imagine what the world would be like if you could purchase products such as toothpaste, toilet paper, blood tests, park your car at the hospital, without having to pay extortion fees to a capitalist owner? Can you imagine what find a world we would have if labor-saving technology actually benefited the worker rather than the owner of capital? We will all have very high standards of living will probably only needing to work about 3 hours per week. But unfortunately, just like with a lot of house slaves, so many can't actually see the box that they're in. It's like the Matrix movie. The walls are invisible. All you have to do is think a little bit. Do you really think a person needs to work 40 hours a week, fifty-two weeks a year, and this day in age, just to be able to afford clothing, food and a little wooden box to live in? No. Of course not. Capitalism is a human livestock management system. Labor-saving technology allows you to produce more milk like a dairy cow. The milk belongs to the farmer. That's why the two richest people have as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population and soon we'll have as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population. Under capitalism you were nothing more than human livestock. Do you understand?
1
-
1
-
@chrisw9534 , and of course I understand that when you live in an apartment building you don't have to pay for the maintenance, the taxes, Etc. I already explained that? What you don't seem to understand is that the landlord doesn't actually pay for those things.
My brother is a landlord. He never worked a day in his life. He received a sizeable sum of money from family which do you use to buy several apartment buildings. Small apartment buildings that don't have any more than 10 units apiece.
He has never worked a day in his life. He has a huge home and lives a fairly lavish lifestyle. Where do you think he gets his money from? Not only do the tenants pay for his lifestyle, the tenants also pay for the cost of the building, all of the taxes, all of the maintenance, Etc. My brother doesn't even do his own accounting. He doesn't even bother doing the managing himself. He pays a manager and an accountant to do the work for him. And of course all of that money comes from the tenants. The tenants paid every single dollar. Do you understand? And that's exactly how capitalist companies work. How can you not understand the argument? And then you say that my shovel example is oversimplify. You say that it's silly. But it would say it's the only way that I can possibly get you to understand the argument. How on God's green earth can you not understand they even though the tenants don't pay for the taxes or maintenance of the building directly, they're still paying absolutely everything directly. What's left over after expenses is pure profit for the landlord. The landlord is living for free. How can you not understand when I'm saying?
And then you're talking about beliefs. Like what I'm saying is some kind of crazy conspiracy theory. No, you simply do not understand very simple math and economics. Everything I said is accurate. Everything that Richard Wolff said is accurate. It's up to you whether or not you want understand it.
And of course the ruling class says because people like you don't understand, that somehow it makes it okay for them to exploit people such as yourself. Kind of like how it's legal for religious people to sell prayer cloths to poor desperate people. That should be illegal. But it's not considered illegal.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , and I've already addressed everything that you said. When the workers own the company, yes, a portion of the wealth that they generate with their labour goes to paying for the initial cost of the company, maybe alone, and the cost of the materials and other operating costs. Taxes, electricity, Insurance, Etc. But they are getting the full value of their labour. There's no outside individual capitalizing or extracting profit from what they're producing. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Just like when you own your own home, you have to pay for your taxes, the maintenance, the insurance, your own fridge and stove, excetera. But you're paying at cost. When you live in an apartment, you're still paying for all of those things, but on top of all those things you're also paying the landlord. How else can he live for free? You think that money just materializes out of nowhere? You think the money grows on a magical money tree? No. You have to understand that anytime you have a dollar that goes to someone who didn't work for it, somewhere else who have someone who work for a dollar that they don't get. This is why it's important to be able to understand basic math and economics. The landlord doesn't get his money from the tooth fairy. Dude, you have a lot of studying to do.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , dude, you actually think in your apartment the stove is free? You think the taxes are free? No, your rent covers all of that. But on top of you paying for everything in the apartment and the maintenance and the taxes, on top of all that you're also paying for the landlord's lifestyle! You are getting ripped off. You were being exploited. It's the same thing when you work as an employee at a capital company.
Again, my brother doesn't do any work at all. Where do you think he gets the money to replace a stove or call the plumber? Where do you think he gets the money to pay for the taxes on the building? You see, not only are the tenants paying for the taxes on the building they're living in, they're also paying for the taxes on my brother's home. He never paid for his car. His car, his home, all the cost of his children, the gifts he gives his wife, kids boat, his motorcycle, his beach home, his canoe, his snowmobile, the gifts he buys at Christmas, the tenants pay for every single thing. Not him. He doesn't pay for anything.
Like I already explained. Capitalism is about owning for living so that you don't have to work when it comes to accumulating wealth. But dude, if you're happy handing over your paycheck to your landlord, then I'm happy for you. You're happy to hand over your money and I'm sure the landlord is happy to take it.
I have an idea, why don't you come over to my place and create a thousand dollars worth of wealth with your labour? I'll give you $100 for every $1,000 worth of wealth you make for me. And then you can tell me how thankful you are. I'm going to provide you with the tools, I'll provide you with a set of overhauls. Hell, I'll even throw in free lunch. Yeah that's how generous I am. You're going to get a free lunch. 😃 my God. What would capitalist do without people such as yourself? You're the equivalent of a house slave.
1
-
@chrisw9534 , what's the fair-value of Labor? That depends on the amount of work that's being done. All work is not created equal. It depends on the person's speed, skill level, education, how dangerous the job is, how monotonous that job is, ETC. That's why the ratio of income is usually 7 to 1 at Democratic companies when it comes to income. Very rarely will you see someone making seven times more than the bottom individual because there's a limit to how much wealth you can convert your labour into regardless of your education, speed, skill, Etc.
What you need to understand is that all wealth comes from mixing labour with capital. When someone takes out more than they contribute, it has to come at the expense of someone else. We have trillions of dollars that are flowing to people that don't work. There are billionaires making thousands of dollars per second from their Capital Holdings. Workers have to pay for that. Every time you buy toilet paper, every time you take out a loan, every time you buy shoelaces, that's extra money that you have to pay. That adds up to years off of your life.
My brother gets to live for free. Those extra paychecks that workers have to give him could have been used to pay for their own mortgage. So my brother gets to spend extra time living while those workers have to lose time off of their lives because they've got to make up for what my brother is extracting.
And that is what capitalism is all about. That is capitalism. Extracting wealth from other people's labour. Again, merely selling product of your labour is not capitalism. The only way you can get the full value of your labour is if you own your own home. If you own your own company or tools. If you pay someone to do the job for you, you cannot give them all of the money that their labour produces. If you gave them all the money that their labour produced after expenses, you would have no profit. Profit is what you get when you don't work. Earnings are what you get when you do work.
But hey, it doesn't matter. If you're happy being an employee or paying a landlord, if you think you are getting a free stove or free taxes from it, then I'm happy for you. If you think Richard Wolff is crazy or a liar, well who cares. As long as you're happy. 😃
1
-
@chrisw9534 , why did I mention the hundred dollars without mentioning expenses? Because I wanted to keep it really really really really simple. And I shouldn't have mention expenses. Everyone has expenses, it doesn't matter if the company is socialist or capitalist. So it is a 100-percent moot point. If you're shoveling the driveway and get $100 after expenses, and then you decide to get someone to do the job for you, obviously you cannot pay them $100. The math is the exact same. I shouldn't even need to take the time to explain that. Again, if you own your own home, or if utilizing social housing, you are paying at cost. All things created equal, that would save you about $500 per month. That's $500 that wouldn't be going to my brother. That's why people like my brother don't like socialism. That's why they don't want social housing. Likewise, the enclosure movement drove people into a state of dependency. Now they have to keep people in the state of dependency. Otherwise the capitalists will have to shovel their own driveways. They won't be able to pay someone like you to do it for them at pennies-on-the-dollar.
You really think that it's necessary for people to work 40 hours a week just to be able to afford a little wooden box, food and clothing? Dude, if you have to work 40 hours a week, you are a slave. You honestly didn't know that you're a Slave? You actually thought you were free? You didn't know that capitalism is literally slavery? Under this system you're either human livestock, being milked, or you're farmer, doing the milking.
You remind me of someone straight out of the Matrix movie. In complete denial about being in The Matrix. 😃
But my brother is just a little capitalist. You have the big capitalist like Donald Trump. They buy up apartment buildings, hotels, railroads, Labs were people get their blood tested, and that is why you have to work 40 hours a week. That is why there's so much debt. That's why most people will be in debt for their entire lives and have to work until the day they die. Most of your labour energy goes into the capitalists pocket when you work for them. And then they get back most of the money that they gave you when you're forced to pay rent and buy toilet paper. 😃
I can't believe that you actually thought you didn't have to pay taxes or plumbers or appliances when you live in apartment. Yeah, you're still paying for all of those things. Honestly, it's really frightening that I even have to explain any of this to you. If you don't understand what Richard Wolff is saying, you're probably better off not knowing anyway. I feel like I'm telling a deeply religious person that God doesn't exist. I can be very dangerous depending on how much of your identity and sense of self-worth is tied to the delusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thanks to socialists Americans aren't making $10 a day like some third world countries. Thanks to socialists we have the 8 hour day, the five-day Work Week, consumer safety standards, old age pensions, the right to unionize, child labour laws, Etc. Before so many socialist fought and died resisting capitalism there were 9 year old children working 16 hours a day. Back in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan, one in 11 workers would die from exhaustion. Thousands would die everyday from unsafe working conditions and a lack of consumer safety standards. People like JPMorgan would hire private police to shoot anyone who tried to organize.
Socialism and communism work very well in the United States.
Almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from communally & socially owned electric coops. Community is where the word communism comes from. Are you using commie electricity right now? https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
here is a very successful socially owned bread factory. Do you think socialist bread tastes better than capitalist bread?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Capitalism, however, mostly works for the rich. For the vast majority of people, capitalism is the opposite of freedom: https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI
Capitalism is economic feudalism. So, what does economic democracy look like? See the 41;30 minute Mark. The guy in the red shirt explains how it works.
https://youtu.be/ZfaFriFAz1k
1
-
It's not a false choice. We should have made the transition to an economic democracy a long time ago. When workers and communities on their own factories and businesses, that's more conducive to a free-market and thriving economy. The wealth flows to the community and workers. That causes the economy to expand because there's more demand for things such as Pizza, beer, trips to the bowling alley, excetera. But when billionaires own most of the capital, they get most of the wealth produced by labour. They spend it on going to space, buying politicians, buying lobbyists, buying lawyers and accountants so they can hide money offshore, etc. They also buy up more Capital such as parking lots at hospitals, electric companies, railroads, Etc. Bill Gates bought a big chunk of the Canadian Railway system. He also bought newly privatized Labs were people get their blood tested in Canada. He's now also the largest owner of farmland in the United States. If you have to pay extra money to Bill Gates every time you want a blood test, park your car, Drive the train, that's less money that you have to spend into the economy. That causes the economy to contract. One of the reasons why they're so much debt. Also, worker-owned companies are tied to the community. You don't have to worry about somebody forcing you to work in unsafe conditions or moving your means of production to China.
So I don't know why you said the fault choice. That doesn't make any sense at all. When people own the product of their labour, they're free! But when someone owns the product of your labour, then you're basically nothing more than human livestock. A wage slave. A wage slave is not much better off than a chattel slave. In the late eighteen hundreds early nineteen hundreds, even the Republican party was against wage slavery. When you're awake slave, everything you produce belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology doesn't reduce working hours even though productivity levels have more than tripled since 1950. Just like if you were to use bovine growth hormone to Triple milk production, the cow doesn't get to work fewer hours. The cow doesn't end up with three times the amount of milk. All belongs to the farmer. Why technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class.
Thanks to capitalism most people have to work 40 hours a week or longer just so they can afford to live in a little wooden box, have food and clothing. 😀 yeah, false choice. That's like saying the choice between freedom and slavery is false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sten260 , the capitalist Market drives value of Labor downward. There are more workers than jobs. Workers have to compete for those jobs. Whoever has the most education and is willing to do the most work for the least amount of money, that's the person that gets the job.
The goal of capital is companies is to maximize profit. profits are maximize by keeping wages as low as possible while getting workers to Bruce as much as possible.
Thanks to the capitalist Market, wages are extremely low. That's why profits are so huge. That's why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth is of course ninety-one percent of the American population.
However, when workers own their own means of production, then they get to keep all of the wealth that their labour produces. That's the point that Richard Wolff is making.
Also, because worker-owned companies are tied to the community, if most of the GDP were coming from those types of companies, then most things we made it home rather than China. And with most of the wealth going to the worker instead of a small Rich minority, workers would have greater purchasing power. That's money they would spend into the economy creating more demand, making it easier for people to start their own businesses.
With every passing day we can produce more and more with less and less labour. For a very long time now we've had the ability to produce far more than we're capable of consuming. People shouldn't need to work 40 hours a week. But under capitalism everything produced by workers belongs to someone else. That's why labor-saving technology led to the Advent of the billionaire class rather than reducing working hours and increasing prosperity for everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unieboy5 , they allow labour to exist! LOL what statement.
yes, the working class is dependant upon the capitalist class because they were put in a state of dependency by force. How can you not understand this? That's why workers are trying to achieve socialism. So they can become independent again. Capitalists need workers. Workers should not need capitalists.
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are glad of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages."
– Hazard Circular, 186
And there's no such thing as free market capitalism. The more Capital you have the faster your wealth grows in relation to everyone else. Without regulations and progressive taxation, the Apex would quickly become bloated and the foundation suck dry. Capitalism is more of a religion than an economic system. Technically speaking, it's an anti economic system. People should only be entitled to the wealthy work for. Living off of other people's labour is immoral and disgusting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradhenderson7100 , okay, so you understand then that under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society which allows them to get most of the wealth produced by labor? That's why we have a situation where the richest 1%, now has almost as much wealth as a Poor's 91% of the American population. The two richest people, all by themselves, have almost as much wealth as a poorest half of the American population. And the eight richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population.
Not only do those small minority of capitalists get most of the wealth produced by labor, they also get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, etc. That's why most things are made in China and why there's so many people that actually have to work 3 weeks out of four just to cover their rent! It's like working 3 weeks for free. Your landlord gets to spend those paychecks on his lifestyle.
However, when workers own their own means of production, they get to make the rules and they get the wealth. And that's better for the economy because when the workers get the wealth they have more to spend. That creates more demand.
However, capitalism is not conducive to free markets or thriving economies because the goal is to maximize profit by paying workers as little as possible and getting them to produce as much as possible. That violates one of the central goals of Economics which is to achieve equilibrium. More successful a capitalist company is, the less purchasing power workers have!. That's why there's so much debt!. You have to constantly be boring more and more from the future. Now there's no longer enough hard currency to cover all of the debt. That's why we now have to print money into existence.
So I'm glad you understand the argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@statistdestroyer , tell me again how two people trading with one another is a form of wealth creation. 😀 I'm still not clear on that. So if someone trades a dollar for a dollar, somehow that creates wealth?
Question: How do you create wealth without work?
Statist Destroyer (aka James Adams):
There are many ways to create wealth without labour.
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
None of those are examples of wealth creation. you moron. 😀
Let's look at some of your other asinine comments:
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
Yes they are. The less workers get paid the more profits go to the owners. You claim to have a master's degree in accounting. Then you should know in economics 101 you learn that profits are extracted from the four main factors of production which are: land, labour, capital and Entrepreneurship.
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor" because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Dude, the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population While most Americans can no longer afford a family on a single income. The 8 richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the Earth's population while 80% of the 7 billion people on the planet subsist on $10 a day or less. Yeah, capitalism causes massive inequality. This is another example of you not being able to differentiate between facts and assertions.
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not 'cause massive inequality' either. Factually socialist economies are less equal than their more capitalist counterparts. You're not entitled to your own set of facts just because you're a propagandist."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism does not cause depression or any inequality."
Of course capitalism causes depression. Everyone knows that capitalism is extremely unstable. Economic downturn lead to depression, suicide, increases in substance abuse, mental disorders, Etc.
USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people.
~ (Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime.
~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
The ‘Merva-Fowles’ study, done at the University of Utah in the 1990s, found powerful connections between unemployment and crime. They based their research on 30 major metropolitan areas with a total population of over 80 million.
A 1% rise in unemployment resulted in:
a 6.7% increase in Homicides;
a 3.4 % increase in violent crimes;
a 2.4 % increase in property crime.
During the period from 1990 to 1992, this translated into:
1459 additional Homicides;
62,607 additional violent crimes;
223,500 additional property crimes.
▪ James Adams:
" your debunked "index" doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility.
You don't understand how social Mobility is calculated.
~ Global Social Mobility Index - the World Economic Forum
▪ James Adams:
" I have definitely study the topics of socialism more than you have."
▪ James Adams:
"of course a free market requires capitalism. Capitalism is not at all antithetical to free markets."
You don't understand that markets predate capitalism by thousands of years or that markets have never been free under capitalism.
▪ James Adams:
"there's nothing wrong with absolute capitalism"
What is that even supposed to mean? There's nothing wrong with pure, unregulated capitalism? No, of course corporations don't need to be regulated because they never endanger workers, exploit workers, poison the environment, produce dangerous products, would never exploit child labour.
▪ James Adams:
"You can only have a free market under capitalism."
Wow! 😃
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not right-wing, dumbass. The fascists used collectivism. State ownership. That is socialism by definition. Quit spamming when you can't even get basic definitions right."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalist companies never extract wealth from labour. Quit lying about it."
Cites Koch brother-funded 'Foundation for Economic Education'! aka 'FEE'
▪ James Adams:
"fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's on the left!"
▪ James Adams:
"Joe Biden is not right wing! He's a leftist! He is center-left!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system of organizations. Socialism is top-down."
▪ James Adams:
"under capitalism workers always get paid the full value of their labour."
▪ James Adams:
"workers are never exploited under capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
" feudalism is not an oligarchy, because it's not defined by that word!" (this is a direct quote.)
This is the only quote that isn't verbatim:
"feudalism doesn't fall under the oligarchy category. They had a caste system."
There was simply too much nonsense for me copy it all. But the context is correct. You claimed that feudalism does not fall under the category of an oligarchy. 😀
1
-
@ExPwner , of course it's extortion and using Force. The rich people buy up as much of the resources as they possibly can, increase the prices. They do that with Pharmaceuticals, vaccines, technology, machine parts, minerals, food, water, Etc. The capitalists will privatize even cemeteries and raise the prices. They will privatize entire lakes and then charge the people money to get access to their own water. I have many friends that have worked their entire lives breaking their backs so that they can retire with a good pension only now to have to hand that money over to a landlord and Middleman in order to get access to food. You think people break their backs everyday just so that they can hand their paycheck over to a landlord? You think people work their entire lives just as they can hand their pension over to a landlord?
You don't call that extortion and the use of force? You just reiterate those old tired talking points better disseminated by Propaganda organization such as prageru. You see, that is why so many people are interested in socialism. When workers and communities own their own water supply, hospitals, food distribution Networks, power plants, Etc, then they can cut out the capitalist middleman and just pay for the actual cost of goods and services.
1
-
@ExPwner , and no, the Nazis were not socialist. Saying that they were is both a-historical and empirically false. There's a reason why it capitalized him and fascism are on the same side of the political Spectrum. There is a reason why capitalists support fascism. Fascism is good for capitalist. They destroy labour unions, labour union organizers, they eliminate regulations that protect the environment, workers, children, consumers, Etc. Those regulations get in the way of profits. The goal of capitalism is to maximize profits. But if you can't dump effluent into the river, if you have to use more expensive material because it's not polluting, if you can't utilize child Labour, if you have to pay higher wages, all of those things decrease profits.
All a person has to do is look at public record to see what the Nazis did and the effect that it had. All a person has to do is take the time to read read the documented history. And once you do that, you see very clearly why so many capitalist countries and capitalist billionaires actually funded the fascists and their movements. https://youtu.be/cgRAn31q578
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's the exact same thing that white people used to say about black people in the days of the Antebellum South. Well guess what, you'd be very surprised what people are capable of when they have access to education and opportunity.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donrastar1579 , yes, there's hundreds of thousands of socialist companies all over the world.
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
▪ almost 60% of the United States gets its electricity from worker and community-owned electrical cooperatives.
https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
There are many institutional forms of public and social ownership.
Just a few examples:
Forms of social production:
• State-owned Enterprises (SOEs)
corporations are owned directly by a government (National or sub-national), and operate according to a mandate that may include social criteria.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
• producer cooperatives.
A producer Co-operative is owned collectively and equally by the people who work in it, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Cooperatives are one of the most common forms of nonprofit Enterprises. There are hundreds of thousands of cooperatives in the world; the United Nations estimates that half the world's population are members or customers of a Cooperative. Examples of successful producer cooperatives include Fonterra (New Zealand's largest Dairy producer), the ReWe Group (a major tourism company in Germany), Huawei (a giant Chinese electronics manufacturer, 99% owned by its workers), and Japan's Farm sector where over 90% of the Farmers belong to cooperatives). Strong networks of producer cooperatives are the dominant economic structure in Spain's Mondragon region and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region.
• Consumer Cooperatives.
A consumer Cooperative is owned collectively and equally by the people who buy its products, and is usually governed according to "one person, one vote."
Many retail cooperatives are formed to help consumers obtain lower prices and challenge the market power of private retailers. In Denmark over one-third of all retail sales are conducted through cooperatives. The E.Leclerc Cooperative operates over 500 supermarkets in France. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op runs the country's largest retail Network for outdoor recreation products.
• Recovered companies.
Workers in a bankrupt company effectively expropriate the Enterprise and attempt to keep it in business.
In the years after the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina, over 200 bankrupt factories were taken over by their workers, who continue to operate them (with some government support for refinancing). 2013 law in Bolivia gives workers the explicit legal authority to take over filled firms.
• Community Trusts.
A Community Trust is a non-profit Corporation, usually exempt from normal business taxes, created to purchase and development land, housing, and other Community Asset.
There are over 250 Community Land Trust operating in the US, with the explicit mission to undertake affordable housing develop, Environmental Conservation, and local job creation on lands that they own. Governance is based on a shared model that includes lessees and elected local representatives.
• Benefit corporations.
A benefit Corporation is owned by private shareholders, but obliged by its Charter to pursue social and environmental goals in addition to profit.
"B Lab" is an association which publishes an annual Global ranking of successful benefit corporations. Recent recognized firms include Echele! a tu casa (a benefit corporation based in Mexico City which develops low-cost housing for residents of poor neighborhoods), and Give Something Back (a major office supply company in California with a Community Development mandate).
• Community and nonprofit Enterprises.
Jobs in especially hard-hit regions and communities can be created by nonprofit Community Development agencies, drawing on local resources including training, housing and alternative Finance.
Community Economic Development (CED) is an "up by the bootstraps" effort to mobilize local resources that would otherwise idle, providing local Services, developing infrastructure, and providing unemployed people with job experience and training. Decentralized CED initiatives can be important in many developing economies, and in poor or remote regions of developed countries. Some entire communities have been founded and sustained on Cooperative principles in many countries.
Forms of socialized Finance:
• public banks.
Public banks are owned by national or sub-national levels of government; they take deposits, issue loans ( create credit), and facilitate financial transactions.
Public banking is widespread in many parts of the world. Countries in which publicly- owned banks play a major role include Japan (the JapanPost Bank is the largest Savings Bank in the world), Germany (with two parallel networks of public Banks: Sparkassen and Landesbanken), and China ( where are the state-owned banking system helped China completely avoid the 2008 - 09 World recession).
• Credit unions and Cooperative Banks.
Credit unions and other Cooperative banks are owned by their members, and govern according to "one person, one vote."
there are at least 60,000 credit unions and Cooperative banks in the world, with trillions of dollars in Combined assets; they are the most developed and Powerful form of cooperative enterprise. Large credit unions are important Financial players in many countries, including: Netherlands (the huge Rabobank has 60,000 employees and 750 billion in assets), and France (three major cooperative bank federations account for almost half of all consumer banking), Sweden (the JAK Bank makes loans without charging interest at all), and Canada (the Desjardins credit union movement is the largest financial institution in Quebec).
• Investment and development Banks.
Publicly-owned investment Banks specialize in targeted lending and investing in key companies (including private companies)with strategic economic importance.
State-owned investment or development Banks play an important role in sector development policy and many countries, including France, the Nordic countries, Japan, and Brazil. Singapore's Temasek Holdings was established to foster broad economic and industrial development there; it partially owns over 50 companies, and is consistently profitable.
• Social investment funds and Foundations.
• Sovereign wealth.
• Microcredit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Potalot , that's simply not true.
markets are not unique to capitalism. You don't need capitalism in order to have a market, have production, have people selling and trading with one another. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from.
Keep in mind that merely selling the product of your labour is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables and sell them in the market, that's not capitalism. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that's not capitalism. Capitalism is about acquiring capital for the purpose of extracting wealth from labour. Extracting wealth from employees, rents, usage fees, Etc. if you have a company that is owned by the workers and the workers are doing their own work, that is not capitalism.
You don't need capitalism in order to have a thriving market economy.
Markets are a mode of distribution. Capitalism is a mode of production. the capitalist mode of production is privately owned and utilizes wage labour for-profit.
If we were to switch over to the Socialist mode of production tomorrow, the goods and services would still be sold in the market. The only difference is the workers would actually be able to keep all of the well that their labour produces rather than have it go to shareholders or some capitalist owner.
Capitalism is literally economic feudalism. Socialism is economic democracy. Thinking that you need capitalism in order for workers to own their own company is tantamount to thinking that you need slavery in order to manufacture cotton.
Also keep in mind that a socialist economy would simply be one where most of the GDP is coming from worker-owned Enterprises rather than private Enterprises. so of course we don't need to have a capitalist economy. There are regions in Europe where already 44% of the GDP comes from worker cooperatives.
Under capitalism most of the capital is owned by the richest members of society. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by Labour and they get to make most of the decisions when it comes to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, excetera. That's why the two richest people now have more wealth in the poorest half of the American population and within the next 10 years will probably have more wealth in the poorest half of the Earth's population. this is why just about everything is manufactured in China. sure, the billionaire spend hundreds of Millions of dollars annually trying to convince people that their system is necessary. That's why they pay people like Margaret Thatcher to say that there's no alternative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, statistically speaking, worker cooperatives are a lot more efficient and productive than capitalist companies. There's tons of studies on the subject. Also, workers are statistically happier, more enthusiastic, more creative, take less sick days, there's less incidence of suicide, drug abuse, Etc. And most importantly, workers get to keep most of the money that their labour produces. And they own the product of their labour. App a capitalist company, someone else owns the product of your labour and gets most of the money your labour produces.
And what do you mean employee-owned companies are totally welcome in a free market? Yeah, things are sold in a market. It doesn't matter if capitalism is the mode of production, feudalism, or socialism. Capitalism is a mode of production. Markets are emotive distribution. So even if we switched over to Pure socialism tomorrow, everything would still be sold in the market. 😀 markets are not unique to capitalism. Markets existed before capitalism, and they will exist long after capitalism is gone. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@louiscyfear878 , of course words have meaning! That's why everyone should have at least a rudimentary understanding of etymology.
the capitalist imperative is the maximization of capital accumulation. Why? What is the consequence? As capital accumulation increases your need to work for a living decreases. The goal is to get to the point where you can accumulate without actually having to do any work at all. That accumulation comes at the expense of those who work.
Yes, capitalism is a modern form of slavery. It's a pyramid scheme. let's say for example you decide to capitalize on honey bees. the more honey you acquire at the expense of their labour, the less physical work you actually have to do yourself. if you take 50% of the honey from the bees, the bees now have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken.
or you could capitalize on other people's labour by becoming a landlord. the average individual today in Canada and the United States has to give up 50% of their income in order to pay for rent.
For you could capitalize on a cow. if you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production does that result in the cow having to work half as many hours? No. Now you have a farmer that has twice as much milk. this is why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week. when workers own and control their own labour and resources, labour saving technology results in a reduction of working hours. But, if your labour is owned by someone else, that technology just makes you a more efficient cow and only serves to enrich the owner. that's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class instead of a reduction in the 40 Hour Work Week. we'd still be working 16 hours a day 7 days a week if it weren't for all those people who fought and died to have it reduced. that's all you can do when you're human livestock. the farmer is the farmer is not going to voluntarily give up his prophets that are being accumulated at your expense.
Technically, it's an anti economic system. The word economic is derived from the word "economy", which means the absence of waste. However, capitalism is depended upon both waste and growth. Another function of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. under capitalism equilibrium cannot be achieved without fractional Reserve banking and debt.
1
-
@louiscyfear878 , let me add to that cow analogy with some labour history:
"if you’re, say, a journeyman, a craftsman, and you sell your product, you’re selling what you produced. If you’re a wage earner, you’re selling yourself, which is deeply offensive. They condemned what they called the new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
"We might just consider the matter of wage labor. It’s pretty hard to remember maybe, but if you go back to the early industrial revolutions, the late 19th century, wage labor was considered essentially the same as slavery. The only difference was that it was supposed to be temporary. That was a slogan of the Republican party: opposition to wage slavery. Why should some people give orders and others take them? That’s essentially the relation of a master and a slave, even if it could be temporary.
If you look back at the labor movement in the late 19th century, you see it had a rich array of worker-owned, worker-directed media: worker-written newspapers all over the place, and many of them by women—the so-called “factory girls” in textile plants. Attack on wage labor was constant. The slogan was, “Those who work in the mills should own them.” They opposed the degradation and undermining of culture that was part of the forced industrialization of the society. They began to link up with the radical agrarian movement. It was mostly still an agrarian society, the farmers groups that wanted to get rid of the northeastern bankers and merchants and run their own affairs. It was a really radical democratic moment. There were worker-run cities, like Homestead, Pennsylvania, a main industrial center. A lot of that was destroyed by force, but I again think it’s just below the surface, can rise easily again."
~ Noam Chomsky
https://chomsky.info/theres-a-huge-desire-to-revamp-our-exploitive-economy-bubbling-in-the-collective-unconscious/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@louiscyfear878 , it has nothing to do with wanting to be rich. That doesn't negate anything that I've said.
It is interesting that you said the people are obsessed with their own helplessness. Do you know who used that exact same line? Epstein. Did you see that debate with him and Richard Wolff? Why don't you check it out. :-) Epstein also talked about people being envious of the rich. But who does Epstein work for? Who organized the debate? Who organized the video? Where do these ideas and slogans about personal responsibility come from? Why did Epstein constantly blame government for economic instability? Cui Bono?
The debate was organized by the reason Foundation which is funded by billionaires connected with the oil and banking industry. They are an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN)!!! Reason Foundation's projects include NewEnvironmentalism.org and Privatization.org, as well as Reason Magazine. It is part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation network.
"The Reason Foundation, a self-described "libertarian"[1] think tank, is a right-wing 501(c)3 nonprofit and "associate" member of the State Policy Network (SPN).[2] Reason Foundation's projects include NewEnvironmentalism.org and Privatization.org, as well as Reason Magazine[3] It is part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundationnetwork.
The Reason Foundation is funded, in part, by what are known as the Koch Family Foundations and David Koch serves as a Reason trustee.[4]"
"Privatization.org is the online site of the Privatization Center of the Reason Foundation, founded in 1992 to conduct and disseminate research to federal, state, and local policymakers arguing for privatization of government services in the areas of health, social services, and public safety--as well as infrastructure, such as airports, electric power, highways, transit, and water/wastewater facilities."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Privatization.org
"The State Policy Network (SPN) is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of October 2019, SPN's membership totals 162. Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network
The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
.
1
-
@louiscyfear878 , strong masculine right? Okay. I don't know anything about that.
But anyway, it's very important to understand why certain people want to increase privatization, which is what capitalism is all about. They want to own all the resources. Resources and Technology generate wealth. When workers own and control their own labour and resources, the wealth generated goes to them. When these things are controlled by billionaires, they get the wealth. If you have a wild cow that produces milk, The Cow gets all of the milk he produces. but if a cow is owned by a farmer, all the milk goes the farmer regardless of how much output the cow is capable of.
Let's look more closely at this section.
"Privatization.org is the online site of the Privatization Center of the Reason Foundation, founded in 1992 to conduct and disseminate research to federal, state, and local policymakers arguing for privatization of government services in the areas of health, social services, and public safety--as well as infrastructure, such as airports, electric power, highways, transit, and water/wastewater facilities"
so you can see that they want to own the electric companies, the water companies, Etc.
let me give you an example. not long ago Bill Gates bought the Canadian railroad. His wealth went from 80 to 90 billion dollars as a result. that's 10 billion dollars annually that's no longer going to workers. when you erode the purchasing power of workers, they have less money to spend into their economy. One person's expenditure is another person's paycheck. 10 billion dollars will buy a lot of pizza and beer. those people that make money selling pizza and beer in turn will go and buy other products produced by workers. That's how an economy expands. but when you erode the purchasing power of workers they can no longer afford to purchase back the very goods and services that they're producing in the first place. that's why you see retractions in the economy and why real wages have an increased since 1970. and that's why most of the people today are wage slaves. they have lost their access to resources and wealth producing technology.
you see the old form of slavery involved owning people out right. but that was costly and risky. slaves had to be trained, paid for, housing had to be provided, Etc. if the slave were to die doing risky work, the owner loses his investment. also the slaves would Rebelle and try to escape.
the modern form of slavery doesn't have any of these problems. now the slaves have to pay for their own housing and education. the owner can pay the wage slave less than the cost of living. and if the slave dies, no big deal because you just hire another one. No investment.
anyway, Bill Gates then went on to purchase parking lots at hospitals and Labs where people get their blood tested. so now every time a person gets their blood tested, a portion of that money has to go to Bill Gates instead of the worker. You see when money goes to workers they end up spending 100% of that into the economy in most cases. however, billionaires already have more money than they can spend In a thousand lifetimes. what little money they can reinvest just goes to purchasing more Capital which reduces the purchasing power of workers even further.
anyway, the point is that wealth should stay with the wealth producers. Maybe you don't care about these things. maybe you're one of the few people that can actually benefit from people being poor and in a state of dependency. but at the very least hopefully you can appreciate why your fellow man is trying to achieve independence. it's such a waste unfortunately. We should have had the Work Week reduced to 20 hours a long time ago.
1
-
@louiscyfear878 , I guess you can't appreciate what I'm saying. That's okay. I did the best I could in order to explain it. As capital accumulation concentrates into the hands of billionaires at one end, on the other end you have extreme poverty as a consequence.
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
▪︎ Senior Citizens Are Replacing Teenagers as Fast-Food Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-05/senior-citizens-are-replacing-teenagers-at-fast-food-joints
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
, oh, and I should also mention that whether the railroad was solvent not, that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. :-) the argument is that the honey belongs to the bees. If you have someone who capitalizes on the bees, takes 50% of their honey, the bees have less money for themselves. They have to work 50% longer to replace what was taken. Again, we're dealing with a mathematical truism, not an opinion. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own math or facts.
And yes, the railroad was solvent. It's actually less so now as a result of his takeover. But regardless, if you remove billions of dollars from an economy, it's going to be severe consequences. If you reduce the purchasing power of workers by billions of dollars, not only are you impoverishing them, your impoverishing all those people that are dependant upon their business. Those railroad workers would buy more beer, pizza, haircuts, Etc. Reduce purchasing power results in people getting laid off and retractions in the economy. I hope you can at least appreciate that much. :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mic drop? Why would you say that? Russia is no longer socialist. You think the doctor should move there because it was once socialist? Also, the idea is to reform your own community and Country. Not just keep running off to the most advantageous countries. If the majority of the people had that kind of mindset, the United States would be still stuck in the dark ages of capitalism, where you had nine year old children working 7 days a week, 14 hours a day, no consumer safety standards, no old age pensions, no worker safety, just massive profits for individuals such as jpmorgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie. The middle class owes its prosperity to the labor movement.
Today we do see a lot of Americans actually moving to China! And now the United States is quickly reverting back to where it used to be when it was it's most capitalist. Basically, the United States is now a third world country for many of its citizens. Thanks to a massive propaganda apparatus and concentration of media ownership by the richest members of society, most Americans don't really understand how bad things actually are. For example, over 54% of Americans can no longer read or write! And things are going to get a lot worse. 5 years ago the United States came in at number 27 on the social Mobility index. That's even worse than Portugal and Lithuania! I can't even imagine what it is today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner , timestamps is laughing his ass off because Patrick thought Hillary Clinton was a socialist. But you know what's really funny? You thinking that fascism is a left-wing ideology in the Hitler was a socialist! You even think Biden is a socialist. 😀 yep, you're definitely mr. Perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
" I am very intelligent. I have a master's degree in accounting."
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is not a two class system! Many workers own stock, dumass!"
▪ James Adams:
"capitalism is a bottom-up system because the economy is not centrally planned."
▪ James Adams:
"service-sector jobs that replaced industrial jobs (lost as a consequence of NAFTA) are actually higher-paying and better for workers"
▪ James Adams:
" the social Mobility index doesn't measure social Mobility. Health, education, technology access.... all completely irrelevant in actual measurement of social Mobility."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ James Adams:
"Business is not robbing the poor. The state is."
▪ James Adams:
"Amazon workers are not getting low wages either, dumbass."
▪ James Adams:
"profits are not extracted from labour."
▪ James Adams:
"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism."
▪ James Adams:
"There is no theft of labor value. Workers always get paid the "full value of their labor because that value is what they exchange for (subjective value) not some made up nonsense. Ponder that for a while."
▪ James Adams:
" capitalism does not cause extreme inequality. And you have no evidence that it does!"
Yeah, there's no extreme difference between the poor and the rich. no evidence..😀 not at all! Only that the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population. The richest 1% has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. Simultaneously, going back at least as far as 2015, 40 million Americans use food stamps in order to get enough to eat. That's more people than the entire population of Canada! No, no extreme inequality there. 😀 you're mr. perspicacity incarnate.
▪ James Adams:
"There is no such thing as worker exploitation because that Marxist nonsense was refuted by Bohm Bawerk.
Get an education!"
▪ Q: How do you create wealth in the economy without labour?
James Adams:
"There are many ways to create wealth without labour:
1. Wealth is in knowledge.
2. Wealth is created through saving time on something.
3. Wealth is created through exchange when one person values the thing they want more than the thing they give up.
4. Apples.
5. Wine."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ieaatclams , capitalism is depended upon consumption. It's a consumption based system. Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if people stop buying crap at Christmas? Invidious consumption, conspicuous consumption, planned obsolescence, perceived obsolescence, fractional Reserve banking, quantitative easing, all these things were invented to sustain the capitalist system. 99% of the resources used in production end up in the landfill within six months. We can't cut into this level of waste under the capitalist system because it would increase unemployment. That's why capitalism is unsustainable. It's like the ideology of a cancer cell or virus. :-) it's one big contradiction.
And I still have no idea why you brought up communism. Karl Marx did an analysis of the capitalist system. What does that have to do with Communism? Richard Wolff is not a communist.
And I don't understand your statement associating the state with Communism. The Soviet Union had absolutely nothing to do with Communism. they're referring to themselves as being communist was nothing more than a propaganda campaign. it's like Hitler when he called himself a socialist. Socialism and fascism are Polar Opposites. that's why they're on the opposite ends of the political Spectrum. your saying that you need a state in order to have communism is like someone saying that you need to eat meat in order to be a vegan. Do you have any idea how completely ridiculous that sounds? :-) one of the main goals of Communism is destruction of the state and hierarchy. if you want to move toward communism, then you have to go left. if you claim to be a communist and then start walking to the right, you're either a liar or an idiot.
and hypothetically speaking, why wouldn't communism be sustainable? Consider the Paris commune or the other hundreds of examples. those forms of organization thrived! They were highly successful. and that's why they were destroyed by capitalist countries. Any viable Alternatives or threats to capitalism have to be immediately crushed. why do you think that democracy was overthrown in Afghanistan back in 1979? why do you think the United States, Canada, Britain, Japan send troops into Russia back in 1917 in order to crush the worker Revolution? do you have any idea how many democracies the United States has overthrown just since 1945? if those alternatives to capitalism weren't viable, they wouldn't need to be overthrown.
Anyway, capitalism is a horrible and unsustainable system. what person in their right mind I would think that it's a good idea to give control of all the world's wealth producing technology and resources to the richest members of society? :-) it's extremely undemocratic. if they want to pollute the water, they do so. if they want to move production to China, they do it! if they want to increase if they want to increase CEO pay at the expense of the workers, they can do it.
I don't understand why you think a socialized form of organization is a bad idea. wealth should actually stay with the wealth producers. consider Mondragon in Spain. you don't see those workers voting to pay themselves less money so they can give it away to CEOs or shareholders! you don't see them voting to pollute their own water supply like was done in Michigan. you don't see them voting to move their means of livelihood to China! Why? because it's a democratic system where the workers own and control their own labour and resources. so don't tell me that communism can't work or needs a state. that position is both a- historical and empirically false.
1
-
@ieaatclams , communism is a democratic system. It's a bottom-up system. One worker equals one vote. Capitalism on the other hand is a type of dictatorship, a type of feudalism. One share equals one vote. So someone such as Bill Gates will always be able to out vote someone like you, because he can purchase more shares. So of course these people like Bill Gates are going to vote to keep most of the money themselves while paying the workers the least. of course if they can make more profit by moving production to China, they're going to do it. Why should they care about how clean or safe your working environment is? Capitalism is literally a human livestock management system. It's mean imperative is the maximization of capital accumulation. you think that's a good way to organize Society? It's got to be the most idiotic far-fetched religion ever devised. It doesn't even make any sense. Technically capitalism is not an economic system. It's an anti economic system. Economics is derived from the word economy. Economy is about efficiency, the absence of waste. Capitalism is depended upon waste and consumption. Therefore, technically it's anti economic. it's all so antithetical the free markets. How the hell can you possibly have a free market when all the resources and Technology are controlled by 1% of the population and they have all the purchasing power? it's just one contradiction after the other. It doesn't even make any sense at all.
if you give bovine growth hormone to a cow in order to double milk production, does that result in the cow having to work half as many hours? not under capitalism it doesn't!. all the milk belongs to the farmer. the cow still has to work 8 hours a day while the farmer has more milk than ever before! That's why you have billionaires instead of a reduction of working hours! but under communism and socialism the milk actually belongs to the cow! they produce the milk, so they own it! but of course those people that own the cows today, they have you convinced cows can't possibly own and control their own milk! No, that's just a crazy idea because cows are too stupid!
do you think the honeybees actually need The Beekeeper? Bees manufacturer all the honey and the bee hive. all the honey is generated by the bees mixing their labour with natural capital. All wealth from humans is generated by people mixing their labour with capital. that includes both mental and physical efforts. The Beekeeper is a parasite. he is capitalizing on the honeybees and their work. and that's what capitalism is all about. if you take 50% of the Bees honey, then the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken! and that's why under capitalism the number working hours will never decreased. the only reason we don't have 16 hour working days is because the workers fought and died to achieve the 8-hour day. under the capitalist system competition makes it necessary to maximize the number of hours an employee works. competition makes this a necessity. if it wasn't for so much resistance, they would have brought back the 16 hour work day a long time ago. as it is, people are working longer and harder today than they were just a few years ago. in 2018 you had four people doing the work that 5 people used to do in 2017. shareholders demand a return on their money. but you can only squeeze so much profit out of a worker and by adding filler to products such as hamburgers! there's a ceiling limit. and that's why today you also have so many people that have to work for free in order to gain experience! it's a downward spiral, a race to the bottom. the only reason people are not making a dollar a day is because the minimum wage regulations. Real wages in the United States haven'T increased since 1970. one hour of labour today is worth less than in 1970.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are many barriers that are preventing coops from forming. He discusses this in the video!
It has nothing to do with Envy. Where did you get that idea from? The fact is, wealth that used to go to the workers is now going to billionaires. As their wealth increases, the wealth of workers is decreasing. That's the problem. Real wages in the United States and Canada have an increased since 1970! If we just had have actually kept up with increases in productivity and inflation, the average worker would be making something like $50 an hour.
And you really don't think people shouldn't be dissatisfied considering how much wealth has been transferred from labour to the billionaire class? How could you possibly make such a statement?
▪The two richest people—Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—possess almost the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population.
▪ The richest 5% of the population owns 67% of the wealth. The poorest 60% of the population owns 1% of the wealth.
▪ The wealthiest Americans live on average 20 years longer than the poorest Americans.
▪ over 40% of u.s. households are one paycheck away from poverty.
▪ Banks have foreclosed on over 7 million homes since 2004.
▪ There are 554,000 homeless people on a given night.
▪ The United States, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, has a larger percentage of low-income workers than any other developed nation.
▪ 3% of American adults—6.8 million people—are either in jail or prison or on parole or probation.
▪ There are 1.2 million police officers in the US—almost equal to the population of the state of New Hampshire.
▪The police have killed 15,000 people since 2000.
▪ There are 55,000 children presently in juvenile detention.
▪ A third of states have a form of debtor’s prison, where the poor are locked up for failure to pay fines or debts.
▪ In 2017 Over 30 million Americans had no health insurance and even more are under-insured with high deductibles and co-payments.
As of May 2018, the numbers of people in the U.S. without health insurance have risen to 15.5%, up from 12.7% two years ago, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund tracking survey. This translates to an increase of four million uninsured people nationwide. ~ forbes.
▪ "the US tops all European countries in terms of the percentage of workers and family members who avoid necessary trips to the doctor because they fear financial ruin from the inflated costs of their private health care." ~
Prof. James Petras (the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies)
▪ USA #1 for mental disorders. about 1 in 4 adults. about 60 million people. ~
(Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005 Jun;62(6):617-27.)
▪ Published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. ~
cdc gov - mentalhealthsurveillance-fact_sheet
▪ how life under capitalism causes trauma! https://eand.co/how-life-under-predatory-capitalism-traumatized-a-nation-c90969df042d
"The essence of capitalism, its raison d'être, is not to build democracy, or help working people, or save the environment, or build homes for the homeless. Its goal is to convert nature into commodities and commodities into capital, to invest and accumulate, transmuting every part of the world into its own image for its own realization. The modern capitalist imperative is simply to create more money for idle investors by any means possible. This growth is often enabled by predation on the publicly-held resources that represents real value, thereby diminishing the community's ability to sustain itself in the long run. Forests are clear-cut; public utilities are privatized; social programs are gutted; and so on. The net result is that the quality of life for the vast majority of the world's citizens has declined." ~ Michael Parenti
1
-
1
-
@garrethoien6666 , Richard Wolff pointing out that people can donate if they choose, that doesn't make him a hypocrite.
And you don't think the world would be a better place if we had an economic system where people actually had to work for a living and actually owned the product of their labor? Instead of having an economic system where the richest members of society own most of the capital and get most of the wealth produced by other people's labor? And those that own the most of the capital, they're the ones that get to make most of the decisions in regards to what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, etcetera. That's why most things are made in china, why wages are so low, and why most people can no longer afford a family on a single income. So yeah, if wealth actually went to those that worked for it and produced the capital in the first place, then the vast majority of the population would have a lot of purchasing power. That money would get spent into the economy, creating more demand. Making it easier for people to start their own small businesses. But when most of the wealth goes to the richest members of society, it doesn't get spent into the economy because rich people can only buy so many pairs of socks, underwear, rolls of toilet paper, etc.
So it seems to me Richard Wolff is just talking basic common sense. It stands to reason that it would make the world a better place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Worker-owned companies are actually more efficient and Innovative compared to capitalist Enterprises. Consider Mondragon which has 120,000 employees that own their own bank, high-tech Research Laboratories, University, Hospital, Etc. Then you have other companies such as Ocean Spray or that massive electronics company in China which is owned by the workers. There are regions in Europe or 44% of the GDP come from worker-owned cooperatives. So we know exactly how well they compared to capitalist Enterprises. Workers are happier, more creative, they take less sick days, there's less incidence of substance abuse, suicide, Etc.
Study number 1:
Virginie Perotin's research** which looked at two decades worth of international data, shows that worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses.
"The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some. This study looks at international data on worker-owned and run businesses in Europe, the US and Latin America and compares them with conventional businesses. It also reviews international statistical studies on the firms’ productivity, survival, investment and responsiveness.
It finds that worker co-operatives represent a serious business alternative and bring significant benefits to their employees and to the economy. There are thousands of worker-run businesses in Europe, employing several hundred thousand people in a broad range of industries, from traditional manufacturing to the creative and high-tech industries.
Because worker co-operatives are owned and run by them, employees in worker-owned co-operatives have far more say in the business, from day-to-day concerns through to major strategic issues.
The largest study comparing the productivity of worker co-operatives with that of conventional businesses finds that in several industries, conventional companies would produce more with their current levels of employment and capital if they behaved like employee-owned firms.
When market conditions change worker cooperatives review wages first and keep employment more stable. In a downturn worker co-operatives drop wages rather than reducing their workforce. When business picks up they are ready to
respond and can make up for lost pay because employees enjoy a share of profit."
The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive.
• Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment.
• Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently.
• Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.
• Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms.
** "Virginie Pérotin is Professor of Economics at Leeds University Business School and specialises in the effects of firm ownership and governance on performance, worker co-operatives, employee ownership and profit sharing. Previous academic and research roles include positions at the International Labour Office, the London School of Economics and the Centre d’Etude des Revenus et des Coûts (CERC) in the French Prime Minister’s Office in Paris. Professor Pérotin has also acted as a consultant to the European Commission, World Bank and OECD on issues of profit-sharing, employee ownership and employee involvement schemes."
Here is a link to the research data https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf
Study number 2:
This study by The Democracy Collaborative found that in the US, worker cooperatives can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, and that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses. This data also showed that worker coops have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates, and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation!
https://democracycollaborative.org/content/worker-cooperatives-pathways-scale
Study number 3:
This study of worker cooperatives in Italy, the UK, and France found “positive” relationships with productivity. It also found that worker cooperatives do not become less productive as they get larger. One 1995 study of worker cooperatives in the timber industry in Washington, USA found that “co-ops are more efficient than the principal conventional firms by between 6 and 14 percent”.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf
Study number 4:
An in-depth study of the Mondragon Corporation released today (5 April 2017) reveals how a large global business thrives because it’s owned by its workers, caps the gap between the highest and lowest paid, and has built an ecosystem around itself.
https://www.uk.coop/newsroom/new-report-highlights-lessons-worlds-largest-worker-co-op
Now you compare that with capitalist Enterprises where where the pay disparity between the top and the bottom is as high as 312 times!
CEOs and shareholders do not Work 312 times harder then the actual workers themselves. These disparities only exist in dictatorial capitalist companies where workers have no control. And that's why in Flint Michigan the workers at the Ford Motor Company plant we're forced to poison their own water supply. It's why they had no choice when production was moved offshore. Those kind of problems do not exist or happen in workplace democracies. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018
▪︎ Worldwide, cooperatives represent well over $3 trillion in turnover, 12.6 million in employment, and over a billion people in total membership.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/2014/coopsegm/grace.pdf
▪︎ In the United States the cooperative sector represents over $500 billion in revenues and employs about two million people
http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/sites/all/REIC_FINAL.pdf
1. For example, these assembly line workers make $65,000 a year for putting bread into a bag! https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
2. People feel United and actually look forward to going to work! That makes them more creative and productive. https://youtu.be/oH81zuMf_Co
3. Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies https://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
4. More resilience, productivity, and equality. https://lindsayadvocate.ca/worker-cooperatives-a-path-to-equality/
5. Democratic workplaces are far superior to capitalist corporations!
https://cooperativesfirst.com/blog/2017/09/11/2017911how-co-operatives-are-better-than-corporations/
6. People have more money, people are happier, people are more productive and more creative, and they feel more connected to their communities and environment. https://youtu.be/em9YQzDTReo
7. The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/
8. pandemic crash shows worker cooperatives are more resilient than traditional businesses. Worker co-ops are a more sustainable form of business, sharing benefits in the good times and burdens in the hard times.
https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/
9. Cooperatives power almost 60% of the United States land mass https://www.electric.coop/electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/
10. "The 29,284 cooperative firms operating in the US generate over 2 million jobs and create more than $74 billion in wages annually according to a study conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. They represent 1% of USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and account for more than $654 billion in revenue. These cooperative businesses contribute with $133.5 billion in income and $3 trillion in assets, and provide products and services across the country in every sector of the economy."
"US cooperatives’ contribution to the national and local economies can be measured in both financial and non financial ways. They keep profits local, pay local taxes to help support community services, take part in community improvement programs and provide services for a large numbrer of people in the country regardless of their income levels or geographic location."
Key points to highlight about American cooperatives:
• There are 120 million cooperative members.
• 92 million U.S. consumers are member owners of, and receive all or part of their financial services from the nation’s nearly 8,200 credit unions.
• More than 900 electric cooperatives deliver electricity in the United States to 42 million people in 47 states. That equates to 12 percent of the nation’s population.
• In the United States, more than 1.2 million families of all income levels live in homes owned and operated through cooperative associations.
• Farmer co-ops provide over 250,000 jobs, with a total payroll in excess of $8 billion.
• More than 50 million Americans are served by insurance companies owned by or closely affiliated with cooperatives.
• More than 20 cooperatives have annual sales in excess of $1 billion, including well known names like Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Cabot Creamery, Ocean Spray and ACE Hardware.
US data on Cooperatives
• 29,284 cooperative firms
•654 billion plus in revenue.
• $133.5 billion in income.
• $3 trillion in assets.
• 2 million plus jobs.
• 120 million members.
https://www.aciamericas.coop/Economic-impact-of-the-United
1
-
1
-
@BrianGochnauer , the thing is if most of the GDP came from worker-owned companies, there wouldn't be any economic downturns. Capitalism is responsible for economic downturns.
The problem is that under capitalism workers do not get paid the full value of their labour. And that violates one of the most basic principles of economics. A central goal of Economics is to achieve equilibrium. But capitalism is in direct opposition to that principle. Capitalism is about maximizing profit. Production output is maximized while wages are kept as low as possible. As production costs approaches 0, profits are maximized. But then you end up with a situation where workers can't actually afford the very goods and services that they're producing. If 75% of the wealth is going to the owners of capital, then the workers are obviously only going to be able to afford 25% of what they produce. Where does the other 75% of the purchasing power come from? Debt! That's why interest rates are so low, that's why they're now entertaining the idea of negative interest rates. That's why we're still working a 40-hour work week.
Capitalism is economic feudalism. It is a religion. Why would anyone in their right mind we still following a religion in the 20th century? It's just purely idiotic. we need an economic system that is based on science, a democratic economic system. Capitalism is economic feudalism.
the only reason that people still accept capitalism and wage slavery today is because the billionaire spend hundreds of millions of dollars of our money on Pro capitalist propaganda that appeals to the simple-minded morons.
you see, the ruling class came to realize that the more you try to use Force to control people, the more people resist. capitalism is a modern form of slavery. You have to make the slaves compete with one another, make them actually feel grateful for the Privileges that they get in their captivity.
Capitalist propaganda since 1945:
• Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
• Part 2: http://youtu.be/QY8i4JXdpxs
• Part 3: http://youtu.be/fUOqrxrrY0k
• Part 4: http://youtu.be/ZQuPMRnInoY
• Part 5: http://youtu.be/ao0P7_P22BM
• Part 6: http://youtu.be/3433t89k4LY
now if you want to research the science behind the development of modern propaganda, along with who was behind it and where the money came from, I would recommend watching this documentary
"The history and development of social engineering in the 20th century" http://metanoia-films.org/human-resources/
1
-
@BrianGochnauer , my argument is not based on Theory or Academia. That's why I gave you a huge ton of hard empirical data. I'm talking about basic facts. Markets and production are not unique to capitalism. We do not need capitalism in order to have a business, have markets, have production, have people selling and trading with one another. Merely selling the product of your labour is not capitalism. If you grow vegetables in your garden and sell them in the market, that is not capitalism. If you write a book and you sell it in the market, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites. It is the idea that you can own for a living rather than actually having to do what you work. It is insane to have a system which allows a handful of people to basically own most of the capital, factories and resources on the entire planet while everyone else has to pay rent in usage fees. If you want to play Monopoly, get the board game. Organizing a society that way it's just pure insanity. of course the billionaire spend hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda try to convince people that insanity is actually best for them. Yeah, well guess what? It's not. the argument reiterated from a different perspective: https://youtu.be/QG0FhpGdFwc
"The school, church, TV, & press are used to foster the ideology of the ruling class & indoctrinate the worker into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of society." -- Rob Sewell
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrianGochnauer ,There are 3 main types of socialism. One deals with regulation, progressive taxation, price controls, social programs, minimum wage, consumer safety standards, Labour laws, Etc. without these regulations capitalism would collapse. this type of socialism is prominent in Canada, the United States, Etc. in Europe they refer to it as a social democracy. In the USA they refer to it as Democratic socialism. The exact same thing, different label.
Another type of socialism is when the government owns businesses and factories. SOEs. state-owned Enterprises. these are public
Some people refer to it as state capitalism because the state is in control of the capital instead of private owners.
In advanced capitalist countries many SOEs have been privatized under neoliberalism. But many still operate successfully (in diverse Industries including manufacturing, Communications, Transportation, utilities, and resources), accounting for up to 5% of total GDP in some OCED countries. Examples of successful wholly or partially -owned SOEs include Volkswagen (Germany), State Oil (Norway), EDF group (France), and Metsahalltus (Finland). In many developing and former communist countries (including China, Brazil, Russia and Vietnam) SOEs are much more important.
the third type of socialism is when the workers directly own their own Factory or business. They are running it like a community, which is where the word communism comes from. the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. They are selling the product of their own labour, not the product of someone else's labour. here are two examples of socially owned companies in the United States https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
and then you have communism. Communism is not State ownership. Russia and China never claimed to be communist. they have Communist governments. China has the goal of achieving socialism by 2050. And then eventually communism. in order for communism to occur there can no longer be a state, monetary system or class.
If we increase the number of democratic workplaces, that will make it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. that's because you'll have more members of the community with greater purchasing power. People will be buying more beer, pizza, trips to the bowling alley, Etc.
Traditional socialism / anarchism is simply about workers collectively owning and controlling their own company or factory democratically.
Worker cooperatives keep wealth and control with the community and workers. They make them less dependant upon billionaire corporations and government when it comes to jobs in consumer goods. Therefore, they are more conducive to a free market in Thrive me economy. When workers have more money, they spend more. That makes it easier for other people to start their own small businesses. However, when purchasing power is eroded, which capitalism does because capitalist corporations want to maximize profits by reducing production cost, then the economy contracts because there's inadequate purchasing power to cover the goods and services in circulation.
for example, here are two socially owned companies in the United States. A robotics company and a bread factory. https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
Almost 60% of the USA is powered by these type of workplaces. here is an electrical worker explaining what it's like to work in such an environment. States.
https://youtu.be/wBJADlN2Bic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing is that under socialism greed has very little power because it's a democratic, non-hierarchical system of organization. Capitalism gives massive power to greedy and corrupt individuals. Capitalist have massive power over the economy, the government and workers. They get to decide what is produced, how things are produced, where things are produced, how much workers get paid, Etc. That's why most things are made in China and why the riches 1% now has almost as much wealth as the poorest 91% of the American population. The capitalist gets to decide when you work, how hard you have to work, what you can wear, when you get to eat, when or if you get a coffee break, they can even tell you when and how long you get to go to the washroom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1