Why are capitalists so afraid of worker cooperatives?

Question for the OP: how exactly do we define worker self-management?
I want to make sure we're all on the same page... are we talking about abstract concepts here, or something with a concrete definition?

btw.
In my experience, labor unions have way more actual leverage than those old "worker councils" or similar bodies ever did. Those things were basically just for show... in reality, they’d just rubber-stamp whatever the CEO demanded.

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

That’s a fair question.
But you have to remember there were those worker-owned cooperatives established back during the Soviet Union era. Those weren't technically "seized"—they were just sold off, gifted, or whatever else happened to get them into the hands of "capitalists." That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

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...

Look, capitalist nations had their era of primitive capital accumulation.
Back in the golden age of early capitalism, the average life expectancy for a worker in England was only about 25 years, and having 8-year-olds in the workforce was totally normal.
I guess they could have used a little "transition" period too, huh?

nimblemarlin6 said: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?

The method of production is not the same as genital mutilation, nor did I ever make that comparison. My point was simply that evil doesn't become less evil just because it's voted in through a democratic process.

And now you're conflating two radically different things. First, you were talking about restructuring the entire nation under a worker self-management model—which, by definition, requires seizing companies from their current owners—but then you pivot to something much milder, like providing subsidies for businesses organized under that model. This second option is just a misguided ideological measure that would cause nothing but headaches, but it is certainly a lesser evil than the outright seizure of property that a non-communist could ever dream of.

nimblemarlin6 said: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?

But what are you actually talking about? We basically live in that kind of system already. The government has every right to organize state-owned enterprises however they see fit. You can leave my private business alone, but when it comes to federal agencies, they do whatever they want. So, really, we're on the same page...

nimblemarlin6 said: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?

Ayn Rand and the libertarians would say yes...

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?

Where exactly are you getting the idea that they're bothered by it? Honestly, their only issue would be if worker self-management became the standard, the only way things were done.

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.

Fine, let that majority organize their companies the socialist way then. Who's gonna stop them?

Quincy:

No outsider has any right to slap sanctions on them or even try to topple a country just because its people want their economy run differently than some capitalist nation.

Oh really? Who says? ☕

Sam Martinez9 said: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.

If you’d actually bothered to read the privatization laws, you wouldn't be talking this much nonsense. ☕

They snatched assets away from the people who actually built them and handed them over to whoever had the right connections or zero talent.

Those guys were getting paid salaries for building that wealth. What more do they want? 🙄

Casey Ramos31 said:If you’d actually bothered to read the privatization laws, you wouldn't be talking this much nonsense. ☕

They snatched assets away from the people who actually built them and handed them over to whoever had the right connections or zero talent.

Those guys were getting paid salaries for building that wealth. What more do they want? 🙄

Equity.
Stock.
A slice of the ownership pie.

I know there were times when workers actually gave up a bit of their own perks—like part of their pay or bonuses—just to fund upgrades or new equipment at the plant. I’m thinking specifically about what happened at Kellogg's.

Maria Booth96 said:Equity.
Stock.
A slice of the ownership pie.

I know there were times when workers actually gave up a bit of their own perks—like part of their pay or bonuses—just to fund upgrades or new equipment at the plant. I’m thinking specifically about what happened at Kellogg's.

In a social ownership system? Yeah, right. 🙄

Casey Ramos31 said:In a social ownership system? Yeah, right. 🙄

Even later than that.
Back when everything was being sold off.

Nobody even bothered to ask them.

Maria Booth96 said:Even later than that.
Back when everything was being sold off.

Nobody even bothered to ask them.

What do you mean nobody asked them? They had right of first refusal on shares and a 20% discount, plus an extra 1% for every year they were on the job.

And yeah, "transformation" just meant switching from public ownership to government control.

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...

👍

Exactly! As long as it's voluntary and nobody is being forced into it, socialists and any other fans of self-management are totally free to start their own thing or go work for a company that operates on those socialist/self-managed principles. That’s perfectly doable in a liberal market.

The headache only starts if socialists tried to force *every* single company to adopt this model by sheer force—basically mandating how everyone has to do business. And let's be real—judging by the vibes on this forum—most socialists are only interested in a regime of violent, centralized control over other people and their property.

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?

If I were in charge, I’d be setting up worker-owned factories left and right, but it's hard to get anything done when the media keeps trying to brainwash us through the TV.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Question for the OP: how exactly do we define worker self-management?
I want to make sure we're all on the same page... are we talking about abstract concepts here, or something with a concrete definition?

btw.
In my experience, labor unions have way more actual leverage than those old "worker councils" or similar bodies ever did. Those things were basically just for show... in reality, they’d just rubber-stamp whatever the CEO demanded.

Worker self-management essentially means that the employees—which would include the management team as well—are the ones actually running the business.

As for unions today, what do they really do besides shouting about workers' rights only when people actually decide to strike?
Workers definitely had more leverage before the war.

Gary Martinez2 said:Worker self-management essentially means that the employees—which would include the management team as well—are the ones actually running the business.

As for unions today, what do they really do besides shouting about workers' rights only when people actually decide to strike?
Workers definitely had more leverage before the war.

Look, before the war, we were dealing with a violent, totalitarian regime running a totally broken economic model called "self-managed socialism"—but let’s be real, by the end, that entire state, the whole regime, and that unnatural economic mess just completely fell apart.

When you talk about workers in a socialist system—or honestly, any aggressive economic setup where the government calls all the shots instead of the people doing the actual work—you aren't talking about "rights." They didn't have any rights, basically zero choice, and absolutely no freedom whatsoever.

Instead of letting the workers decide, the regime was constantly stepping in to dictate where they worked, who they worked with, how much they got paid, and under what conditions they had to labor. It was the government calling the plays on how companies were run, who was in charge, what stuff got manufactured, who could buy it, what the prices were, the terms of sale, wages, hours, earning caps, production quotas... you name it! There were a million different central-planning restrictions piled on top of each other—which is exactly why such a massive black market ended up blooming in that old socialistic era.

Why is the author relying on such blatant misinformation?
Every single capitalist actually welcomes competitive market forces because they serve as the perfect tool to drive the floor even lower.

rustywalker32 said:Why is the author relying on such blatant misinformation?
Every single capitalist actually welcomes competitive market forces because they serve as the perfect tool to drive the floor even lower.

As if they would ever bother starting a company like that themselves—it requires far too much actual effort, sweat, and capital—instead, they’d much rather wait for some capitalist to build it so they can just swoop in and take 😁

rustywalker32 said:Why is the author relying on such blatant misinformation?
Every single capitalist actually welcomes competitive market forces because they serve as the perfect tool to drive the floor even lower.

Right, and that’s exactly why they fought against the communists.