Why are capitalists so afraid of worker cooperatives?

Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Worker ownership means more rights for employees. More rights mean higher costs for the boss. Higher costs mean lower profits. It’s that simple. In a capitalist system, profit is the only thing that matters—no conspiracy theories needed, just basic math. That’s why I think capitalism is rotten at its core. People talk about "free markets" and "healthy competition," but it’s all a front. At the end of the day, it's just about the money, and capitalists will do whatever it takes to get it. Under raw capitalism, people tend to act on their lowest instincts rather than their best ones. The irony? The biggest critics of capitalism are the leftists and communists, yet if you look at the last century of social experiments, those systems have been absolute disasters. So here's the real question: what's the actual alternative to a broken capitalist system? That’s the real challenge.

Capitalists are obsessed with protecting their precious private enterprises—they absolutely refuse to hand the keys over to some uneducated, red-flag-waving revolutionaries. They probably think they’re just inherently smarter and more capable at running a factory because they managed to claw their way to the top through sheer grit and intellect, while everyone else is stuck being "just" a worker.

Gary Martinez2 said:Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Look, nobody is stopping employees from quitting, starting their own worker-owned corporation, and running the show themselves.
Or did you actually think those corporate owners just swoop in, take over everything without putting a single cent of their own money into the startup, and then just sit back and collect all the profits?

Gary Martinez2 said:Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Well, why don't you try running things with some workers? Nobody is stopping you.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite—back when worker self-management held a monopoly on the economic order, private entrepreneurship was strictly forbidden. In a capitalist system, there's no ban on worker management. In the USA, you actually have several small to mid-sized companies successfully operating on cooperative principles. They decide on business direction through voting, elect their own supervisors for set terms, and things like that.

Under capitalism, worker self-management is just one way to run a company, and anyone can choose to do it. However, under socialism, entrepreneurship is prohibited. Your question assumes there are inherent restrictions on how a business is managed within capitalism, but those kinds of restrictions were mostly a feature of our old system of worker self-management.

So, really, the real question is why socialists and worker-managed systems find capitalists and entrepreneurs such a threat that they outlaw them, whereas capitalists don't mind self-management enough to ban it...

Gary Martinez2 said:Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Which capitalists are we talking about? Give me specific names, please.
Personally, I don't mind 😉 I'd rather not be lumped into generalizations.

William Anderson5 said:Well, why don't you try running things with some workers? Nobody is stopping you.

Actually, it’s quite the opposite—back when worker self-management held a monopoly on the economic order, private entrepreneurship was strictly forbidden. In a capitalist system, there's no ban on worker management. In the USA, you actually have several small to mid-sized companies successfully operating on cooperative principles. They decide on business direction through voting, elect their own supervisors for set terms, and things like that.

Under capitalism, worker self-management is just one way to run a company, and anyone can choose to do it. However, under socialism, entrepreneurship is prohibited. Your question assumes there are inherent restrictions on how a business is managed within capitalism, but those kinds of restrictions were mostly a feature of our old system of worker self-management.

So, really, the real question is why socialists and worker-managed systems find capitalists and entrepreneurs such a threat that they outlaw them, whereas capitalists don't mind self-management enough to ban it...

Could someone clarify what timeframe and specific area we're actually talking about here?

wearytrucker22 said:Look, nobody is stopping employees from quitting, starting their own worker-owned corporation, and running the show themselves.
Or did you actually think those corporate owners just swoop in, take over everything without putting a single cent of their own money into the startup, and then just sit back and collect all the profits?

I’m 100% with the bolded part here.
Looking at it that way, it makes me wonder why American capitalists always seem to target companies that used to operate under worker-management systems.
Like, why didn't Luke Rajic just start his dairy empire from scratch? Instead, he was basically handed Gold coin on a silver platter because of some "merit." Who knows, maybe a worker-run Gold coin would’ve ended up being even more successful than Rajic's version.

Rachel Roberts6 said:I’m 100% with the bolded part here.
Looking at it that way, it makes me wonder why American capitalists always seem to target companies that used to operate under worker-management systems.
Like, why didn't Luke Rajic just start his dairy empire from scratch? Instead, he was basically handed Gold coin on a silver platter because of some "merit." Who knows, maybe a worker-run Gold coin would’ve ended up being even more successful than Rajic's version.

Instead of building their own businesses, why did the "workers" simply strip the private owner of the municipal dairy in Washington, D.C.?

Gary Martinez2 said:Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Any individual out there who's a true believer in capitalism and free markets will tell you that nobody actually minds if people choose to manage themselves.

Nobody is stopping anyone from starting a business and running it however they see fit...

but...

here's the thing... if you had an election here in the US and a platform won that argued for reorganizing the entire national economy toward that model, what do you think would happen?
Suddenly, every major media outlet in the West would be painting that country as some kind of rogue dictatorship—they'd be rooting for its total collapse. And to make sure that actually happens, you'd see full-blown economic warfare, isolation from the global market, sanctions, or even worse—intelligence agencies orchestrating "grassroots" protests by "concerned citizens" to trigger a coup and topple the democratically elected government.

nimblemarlin6 said:Any individual out there who's a true believer in capitalism and free markets will tell you that nobody actually minds if people choose to manage themselves.

Nobody is stopping anyone from starting a business and running it however they see fit...

but...

here's the thing... if you had an election here in the US and a platform won that argued for reorganizing the entire national economy toward that model, what do you think would happen?
Suddenly, every major media outlet in the West would be painting that country as some kind of rogue dictatorship—they'd be rooting for its total collapse. And to make sure that actually happens, you'd see full-blown economic warfare, isolation from the global market, sanctions, or even worse—intelligence agencies orchestrating "grassroots" protests by "concerned citizens" to trigger a coup and topple the democratically elected government.

The thing is, saying one wants "to organize the entire national economy" is usually just a polite euphemism for "advocating for the seizure of private property." And, frankly, some people aren't particularly fond of the idea of having their property seized.

Let’s be honest: capitalists aren't losing any sleep over the idea of worker self-management.

First off, tearing down a system of worker control is surprisingly easy. Look at how quickly the self-managed socialism in the USA collapsed—it fell like a house of cards.

The workers didn't stand a chance of keeping their companies, either. They were basically told their businesses were worthless because they were "socialized" assets. Then came the wave of restructuring and privatization, where workers were either pushed into early retirement or left sitting at unemployment offices while the factories were handed over to various people like Rajić or Kulteim.

Secondly, even in a small business, getting two co-owners to actually work together is a nightmare. I’ve seen it happen even with biological brothers. One wants to go left, the other wants to go right; one wants to pay the water bill, the other forgets the electricity... before you know it, within six months, the partnership is dead.

The truth is, humanity hasn't evolved enough for true self-governance. People still instinctively crave a leader, a boss... someone to step up and make the final call.

Self-management requires a level of humanity and maturity that we just haven't reached yet. It demands a genuine hunger for learning and collective knowledge, but we're still essentially shaking off the remnants of a feudal mindset.

Give it maybe five hundred or a thousand years, and things might look different.

Nicole James said:The thing is, saying one wants "to organize the entire national economy" is usually just a polite euphemism for "advocating for the seizure of private property." And, frankly, some people aren't particularly fond of the idea of having their property seized.

So, democratic elections don't count for anything then?

If the winning party’s whole platform is built on socialism, communism, or worker self-management—and the majority of voters actually pick those communists at the ballot box—then it means that’s what the people actually WANT.
Look at what happened in Greece. The Greek people made it clear they wanted Syriz.

No outside force has any right to slap them with sanctions or try to destabilize the country just because the citizens want to run their economy differently than some typical capitalist powerhouse.

Sam Martinez9 said:Let’s be honest: capitalists aren't losing any sleep over the idea of worker self-management.

First off, tearing down a system of worker control is surprisingly easy. Look at how quickly the self-managed socialism in the USA collapsed—it fell like a house of cards.

The workers didn't stand a chance of keeping their companies, either. They were basically told their businesses were worthless because they were "socialized" assets. Then came the wave of restructuring and privatization, where workers were either pushed into early retirement or left sitting at unemployment offices while the factories were handed over to various people like Rajić or Kulteim.

Secondly, even in a small business, getting two co-owners to actually work together is a nightmare. I’ve seen it happen even with biological brothers. One wants to go left, the other wants to go right; one wants to pay the water bill, the other forgets the electricity... before you know it, within six months, the partnership is dead.

The truth is, humanity hasn't evolved enough for true self-governance. People still instinctively crave a leader, a boss... someone to step up and make the final call.

Self-management requires a level of humanity and maturity that we just haven't reached yet. It demands a genuine hunger for learning and collective knowledge, but we're still essentially shaking off the remnants of a feudal mindset.

Give it maybe five hundred or a thousand years, and things might look different.

Since socialism is supposedly worthless, we might as well privatize everything!

But then, once the privatization was complete, suddenly those companies were worth plenty when it came time to sell them off.

The end result? The owner walks away with the cash, leaving behind no company and absolutely no jobs for the local community. 😁

Rachel Roberts6 said:I’m 100% with the bolded part here.
Looking at it that way, it makes me wonder why American capitalists always seem to target companies that used to operate under worker-management systems.
Like, why didn't Luke Rajic just start his dairy empire from scratch? Instead, he was basically handed Gold coin on a silver platter because of some "merit." Who knows, maybe a worker-run Gold coin would’ve ended up being even more successful than Rajic's version.

That’s the fundamental issue with restructuring and privatization. These messy processes are a byproduct and a symptom of socialism, not capitalism. You don't see this kind of thing happening in the USA, France, or the UK, yet it's everywhere in places like Ukraine and Russia.

Essentially, we're seeing how socialism paved the way for systemic corruption during periods of transition. In truly capitalist nations, there was no "transition" period, so there was no transitional crime to speak of...

nimblemarlin6 said:Since socialism is supposedly worthless, we might as well privatize everything!

But then, once the privatization was complete, suddenly those companies were worth plenty when it came time to sell them off.

The end result? The owner walks away with the cash, leaving behind no company and absolutely no jobs for the local community. 😁

Exactly.

And now, roughly 330 million Americans across the former America are left to deal with the fallout.

Is there really anything else to be said?

Perhaps I should add—even today, you still run into thousands of people who will tear themselves apart just to prove those companies were truly worthless, that socialism was nothing... and that things are incomparably better now.

My take on it? People truly get what they deserve. So let them enjoy the fruits of capitalism.

nimblemarlin6 said:Any individual out there who's a true believer in capitalism and free markets will tell you that nobody actually minds if people choose to manage themselves.

Nobody is stopping anyone from starting a business and running it however they see fit...

but...

here's the thing... if you had an election here in the US and a platform won that argued for reorganizing the entire national economy toward that model, what do you think would happen?
Suddenly, every major media outlet in the West would be painting that country as some kind of rogue dictatorship—they'd be rooting for its total collapse. And to make sure that actually happens, you'd see full-blown economic warfare, isolation from the global market, sanctions, or even worse—intelligence agencies orchestrating "grassroots" protests by "concerned citizens" to trigger a coup and topple the democratically elected government.

Why do you support certain corporate governance models while trying to ban others? Isn't it more democratic to let people run their businesses however they see fit? If someone wants the government to manage their company, they can sell it to the state. If workers want self-management, they can organize and manage it themselves...

Besides, where exactly would the money come from to compensate for the nationalization of private companies? Or are you just assuming you can strip me of everything I spent over ten years building without any compensation at all? Just walking in and seizing my business, I suppose...

William Anderson5 said:That’s the fundamental issue with restructuring and privatization. These messy processes are a byproduct and a symptom of socialism, not capitalism. You don't see this kind of thing happening in the USA, France, or the UK, yet it's everywhere in places like Ukraine and Russia.

Essentially, we're seeing how socialism paved the way for systemic corruption during periods of transition. In truly capitalist nations, there was no "transition" period, so there was no transitional crime to speak of...

In short, the restructuring and privatization processes were nothing more than legalized theft.

Assets were stripped away from the very people who built them, only to be handed over to whoever happened to be in favor or simply incompetent at the time.

nimblemarlin6 said:So, democratic elections don't count for anything then?

If the winning party’s whole platform is built on socialism, communism, or worker self-management—and the majority of voters actually pick those communists at the ballot box—then it means that’s what the people actually WANT.
Look at what happened in Greece. The Greek people made it clear they wanted Syriz.

No outside force has any right to slap them with sanctions or try to destabilize the country just because the citizens want to run their economy differently than some typical capitalist powerhouse.

Theft is theft, period—it doesn't matter if it has popular support or not. In certain radical fundamentalist circles, a majority might actually support things like child marriage or other absolute atrocities, but we don't pretend those actions are any less horrific just because a local majority happens to agree with them.

Nicole James said:Theft is theft, period—it doesn't matter if it has popular support or not. In certain radical fundamentalist circles, a majority might actually support things like child marriage or other absolute atrocities, but we don't pretend those actions are any less horrific just because a local majority happens to agree with them.

Right... so, in your book, a specific way of organizing production that you happen to dislike is somehow equivalent to—well, let's be blunt—genital mutilation?

Let's look at some hypotheticals here. Imagine a country holds an election and a party wins that runs on a platform of supporting worker cooperatives and self-management.
Say the Green Party wins in America. Their platform isn't about seizing assets; it’s about fostering community-run cooperatives.
Who exactly are they stealing from?

It honestly feels like you're attacking even those kinds of hypothetical scenarios.

And then there's a real-world example—the Democratic Party in Greece is clearly a leftist organization.
In your view, is the Democratic Party just as evil as those extremists in Africa who mutilate children—meaning, would it be considered "moral" to invade Greece and liberate the Greek people from their legally elected government?