Why are capitalists so afraid of worker cooperatives?

Sophia Moore52 said:And what haven't they?

It seems you haven't provided any substance here, just a collection of empty platitudes.

Sophia Moore52 said:And what haven't they?

Think about all the talent those fast-growing tech giants like Five Minutes, Accenture, Zynga, Farmer, Twilio (they’ve got like 600 employees, IRC), Electronic Arts, Deloitte, and DraftKings have scooped up. Most of those companies are strictly export-driven... they don't care about politics or government stuff, just pure technical skill.

Those politically connected folks who grabbed control of companies after the regime changes back in the 90s? They aren't actual capitalists. You can't call them that when they didn't build their empires through their own capital or hard work...

rowdylynx98 said: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.

In our neck of the woods, capitalists essentially seized control of companies that were originally built by the laborers during the socialist era, all through a uniquely American style of "privatization" carried out by political cronies, relatives, and various other party loyalists.

The most fascinating thing about these anti-market fanatics is their absolute hatred of private property—which, if you ask me, mostly stems from how badly privatization went down back in the 90s. It was handled so poorly that tons of unprofitable companies just folded, leaving workers out on the street.

News flash!

The party and its leftovers were basically handing out assets to their own people. This wasn't some free market or actual private capital; it was just the government divvying up state property based on who you knew within the system and who had the power to distribute it. Besides, the actually competitive, high-quality factories and businesses survived even without help from stolen capital, US subsidies, or doing business with non-aligned nations. General Electric, Hershey, Whirlpool, Kraft Heinz... they all stayed competitive and crushed it in the market.

The losers—you know, the ones who followed that old socialist model by hiring 30-40% more staff than necessary, picking directors based on political connections, and putting incompetent people in key roles because they didn't understand basic economics due to years of Marxist indoctrination—those guys traded with non-aligned dictatorships and sucked up taxpayer money every year just to cover their deficits? Yeah, they failed. And honestly? They deserved it.

Cry all you want, but the whole point of working isn't just "working"—it's about creating actual value. If nobody wants to buy what you're selling, you either go bust or you pivot your business model to satisfy the market.

So, ironically, the Democratic Party doesn't actually have any real arguments against private ownership or privatization itself. Their issue is really just how their buddies first gutted those companies under socialism and then sliced them up for their pals, relatives, and everyone else they could squeeze some cash out of during the transition.

At the end of the day, this is just another case of terrible governance, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Which brings me back to my point: if we want to move forward, we need to get the government out of the way of the market entirely.

So, we’re still stuck with nothing but empty promises about aid from the US... meanwhile, America's per capita debt has ballooned to fifty-five times what it was back in the day, all while capitalists pocket the profits at the expense of everyone else...

Look, we’re totally against today's socialists too—the ones running up massive debts that our kids haven't even been born to pay off yet! You and everyone else who thinks like you basically handed over the keys to your socialist idols—whether it was Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Joe Biden—letting them spend like drunken billionaires and grab total control over the entire economy through that whole "socialist interventionism" nonsense.

The US is drowning in debt because of these incompetent socialists sitting pretty in their comfy office chairs and the absolute lack of real capitalism in the system.

Sophia Moore52 said:So, we’re still stuck with nothing but empty promises about aid from the US... meanwhile, America's per capita debt has ballooned to fifty-five times what it was back in the day, all while capitalists pocket the profits at the expense of everyone else...

I guess you're just totally missing the point here.

If someone is being upfront and admitting that things were split up among cronies back in the nineties—which wasn't right—why do you keep acting like that's some textbook example of capitalism? It's not.
Do you really think there aren't any legit businesses in America that actually work and were built the right way?
There are.
And they deserve a fair shake.
Everything that's bothering you isn't actually capitalism, and nobody's saying it was good, but you just fixate on the bad stuff and call it capitalism. You fight against it without actually listening to a word anyone tells you.
Sorry, but you're just lost.

Someone pointed out a weird paradox somewhere, maybe on this thread or one like it.
We end up in a mess because of government overreach, yet the "smart" solution people suggest is usually even more government control.
Sure, we need more influence, but specifically when it comes to shrinking the bureaucracy, staying out of the economy, fighting corruption, and actually making sure laws are applied fairly.
Everything else? Just let the market handle it.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I guess you're just totally missing the point here.

If someone is being upfront and admitting that things were split up among cronies back in the nineties—which wasn't right—why do you keep acting like that's some textbook example of capitalism? It's not.
Do you really think there aren't any legit businesses in America that actually work and were built the right way?
There are.
And they deserve a fair shake.
Everything that's bothering you isn't actually capitalism, and nobody's saying it was good, but you just fixate on the bad stuff and call it capitalism. You fight against it without actually listening to a word anyone tells you.
Sorry, but you're just lost.

Someone pointed out a weird paradox somewhere, maybe on this thread or one like it.
We end up in a mess because of government overreach, yet the "smart" solution people suggest is usually even more government control.
Sure, we need more influence, but specifically when it comes to shrinking the bureaucracy, staying out of the economy, fighting corruption, and actually making sure laws are applied fairly.
Everything else? Just let the market handle it.

It's because we live in a capitalist democracy, isn't it that simple? If you feel like this version of capitalism isn't the "real" thing, that sounds like a personal issue rather than mine.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I guess you're just totally missing the point here.

If someone is being upfront and admitting that things were split up among cronies back in the nineties—which wasn't right—why do you keep acting like that's some textbook example of capitalism? It's not.
Do you really think there aren't any legit businesses in America that actually work and were built the right way?
There are.
And they deserve a fair shake.
Everything that's bothering you isn't actually capitalism, and nobody's saying it was good, but you just fixate on the bad stuff and call it capitalism. You fight against it without actually listening to a word anyone tells you.
Sorry, but you're just lost.

Someone pointed out a weird paradox somewhere, maybe on this thread or one like it.
We end up in a mess because of government overreach, yet the "smart" solution people suggest is usually even more government control.
Sure, we need more influence, but specifically when it comes to shrinking the bureaucracy, staying out of the economy, fighting corruption, and actually making sure laws are applied fairly.
Everything else? Just let the market handle it.

Exactly! I say this all the time, but honestly? Sound logic isn't exactly a superpower for socialists.

Everyone loves to trash politicians, but their actual answer to all that theft and incompetence is just this utopian dream that fair and honest people will somehow magically take over those seats of massive power—as if they haven't been searching for "honest" leaders for over a century! The seats and the authority itself are the whole issue here; power corrupts, and absolute power? Well, that corrupts absolutely.

Everybody knows corruption is everywhere, from D.C. down to your local sheriff, but instead of fighting to actually limit political power and stop the flood of corporate cash through their pockets, people think that even more authority will somehow make those same corrupt officials fight against corruption. It’s a joke!

Everyone sees the nepotism—how jobs and subsidies go straight to buddies and big donors—but the response isn't to tighten the leash on the state's ability to hand out other people's money. Instead, they paradoxically believe that even bigger powers will allow those same bureaucrats to monitor themselves. Like, seriously?

Everyone knows the government is inefficient, wasteful, irresponsible, creates zero value, and is packed with opportunists, liars, scammers, and criminals—yet ironically, they want to hand *those exact people* more power and a total monopoly over healthcare, education, Social Security, the military, highways, national industries, etc. Where on earth do they get the faith in politics and its army of cronies and bureaucrats... only they seem to know.

It’s hard to wrap your head around these kinds of paradoxes from a liberal perspective. Only true statists could possibly believe in the "benevolence" of the state enough to demand they take even more of our hard-earned money, especially when the results of that kind of setup have been nothing short of catastrophic...

Sophia Moore52 said:It's because we live in a capitalist democracy, isn't it that simple? If you feel like this version of capitalism isn't the "real" thing, that sounds like a personal issue rather than mine.

Yeah, it’s definitely your problem. And unfortunately, it’s mine too, since people like you are everywhere these days.

Sophia Moore52 said:It's because we live in a capitalist democracy, isn't it that simple? If you feel like this version of capitalism isn't the "real" thing, that sounds like a personal issue rather than mine.

It’s just great how you totally ignore all those massive American corporations that actually grew from nothing.
And apparently, in your world, the definition of capitalism is just handing over a company to your buddies in the political party... lol.

That’s not "right" or "wrong" capitalism—it’s just not capitalism at all! A business handed to you because of political connections instead of actual hard work or innovation? That’s something else entirely...

But hey, you're Sophia Moore52, so I guess you're supposed to be an expert on this stuff, right?...

Olivia Evans8 said:It’s just great how you totally ignore all those massive American corporations that actually grew from nothing.
And apparently, in your world, the definition of capitalism is just handing over a company to your buddies in the political party... lol.

That’s not "right" or "wrong" capitalism—it’s just not capitalism at all! A business handed to you because of political connections instead of actual hard work or innovation? That’s something else entirely...

But hey, you're Sophia Moore52, so I guess you're supposed to be an expert on this stuff, right?...

Sending Jews to concentration camps isn't socialism either (it makes zero sense to suggest Marx, being a Jew, would advocate for his own destruction), yet people still make a huge deal out of it, while you seem perfectly fine with it.

Sophia Moore52 said:Sending Jews to concentration camps isn't socialism either (it makes zero sense to suggest Marx, being a Jew, would advocate for his own destruction), yet people still make a huge deal out of it, while you seem perfectly fine with it.

How can you say that? I mean, Marx was actually an anti-semite himself—did you skip that part of history? 🤷

Look, any power a government grants itself under socialism theoretically gives the state total control over the individual, their property, and their basic freedoms. Everything belongs to the state and the regime running its machinery. That’s exactly why those German socialists were able to shove people into death camps—it was all "legal" in the name of the collective, the people, society, socialism, anti-capitalism, and all those other national socialist principles 👍

Socialism is essentially the state using its monopoly on force to crush fundamental personal and economic liberties. It's not exactly a massive leap to assume that a regime that doesn't respect its own boundaries will toss "undesirables" into Gulags, Alcatraz, or deal with them via an axe to the head like Đureković or in Treblinka like the German socialists did. That right there is the backbone of statism and every statist model out there, from socialism all the way to fascism.

Giving a regime too much power is never, ever a good idea. 👍

crimsonwolf20 said:How can you say that? I mean, Marx was actually an anti-semite himself—did you skip that part of history? 🤷

Look, any power a government grants itself under socialism theoretically gives the state total control over the individual, their property, and their basic freedoms. Everything belongs to the state and the regime running its machinery. That’s exactly why those German socialists were able to shove people into death camps—it was all "legal" in the name of the collective, the people, society, socialism, anti-capitalism, and all those other national socialist principles 👍

Socialism is essentially the state using its monopoly on force to crush fundamental personal and economic liberties. It's not exactly a massive leap to assume that a regime that doesn't respect its own boundaries will toss "undesirables" into Gulags, Alcatraz, or deal with them via an axe to the head like Đureković or in Treblinka like the German socialists did. That right there is the backbone of statism and every statist model out there, from socialism all the way to fascism.

Giving a regime too much power is never, ever a good idea. 👍

A Jew being an anti-Semite? Well, that certainly takes the cake...

☕

Tell me, hourly workers, what kind of rate are you pulling in these days?
Do you happen to run a side hustle on the side too?

Sophia Moore52 said:A Jew being an anti-Semite? Well, that certainly takes the cake...

☕

"It is the circumvention of law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew." (Das Kapital, 162)

"The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races." (The New York Times)

He called Ferdinand Lassalle, "Judel Itzig-Jewish Nigger." (Der Judische Nigger, 82, July 30, 1862)

"Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas." (490, August 25, 1879)

"Let us look at the real Jew of our time; not the Jew of the Sabbath, whom Bauer considers, but the Jew of everyday life.

"What is the Jew's foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

"What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

"Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time." ("A World Without Jews," p. 37)

"What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism." (Ibid, p. 40)

"Money is The zealous One god of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is The universal and self-constituted value set upon All things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is The essence of man's Life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

"The god of The Jews Has become secularized and is now a worldly god. The Bill of exchange is The Jew's real god. His God is the illusory bill of exchange." ("A World Without Jews," p. 41)

Gary Martinez2 said:Tell me, hourly workers, what kind of rate are you pulling in these days?
Do you happen to run a side hustle on the side too?

Oh, you betcha! I've got my own business running, and yeah—I even hire people! And get this—I’ve got all the time in the world to drop knowledge on these socialists and fascists for absolutely zero dollars.

No worries at all 😁

crimsonwolf20 said:Oh, you betcha! I've got my own business running, and yeah—I even hire people! And get this—I’ve got all the time in the world to drop knowledge on these socialists and fascists for absolutely zero dollars.

No worries at all 😁

From the goodness of your heart.

crimsonwolf20 said:"It is the circumvention of law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew." (Das Kapital, 162)

"The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races." (The New York Times)

He called Ferdinand Lassalle, "Judel Itzig-Jewish Nigger." (Der Judische Nigger, 82, July 30, 1862)

"Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas." (490, August 25, 1879)

"Let us look at the real Jew of our time; not the Jew of the Sabbath, whom Bauer considers, but the Jew of everyday life.

"What is the Jew's foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

"What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

"Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time." ("A World Without Jews," p. 37)

"What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism." (Ibid, p. 40)

"Money is The zealous One god of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is The universal and self-constituted value set upon All things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is The essence of man's Life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

"The god of The Jews Has become secularized and is now a worldly god. The Bill of exchange is The Jew's real god. His God is the illusory bill of exchange." ("A World Without Jews," p. 41)

Gary Martinez2, watch your step. You're walking on thin ice here.

Marx faced accusations of being an antisemite just as often as he was blamed by others for bringing the evil of communism to the world—it really just depended on who was attacking him. Both sides were clearly in the wrong,
nothing more than a basic ad hominem