Why are capitalists so afraid of worker cooperatives?

analoggull52 said: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.

Oh yeah, because those geniuses working the floor built the whole damn company. They just shook out some US dollars and bought the land, the factory, the machines, the raw materials, the licenses, and the patents, then just sat there coasting :klap:

As for those Republican puppets? They aren't even in the same league as the real elites. ☕

Casey Ramos31 said:Oh yeah, because those geniuses working the floor built the whole damn company. They just shook out some US dollars and bought the land, the factory, the machines, the raw materials, the licenses, and the patents, then just sat there coasting :klap:

As for those Republican puppets? They aren't even in the same league as the real elites. ☕

Well, I suppose to people who haven't built anything themselves, that might sound a bit strange... but the truth is, even US dollars are created by the hard work of laborers; they don't just grow on trees...

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.

First time I'm hearing that. And yeah, you're totally right, I don't care. Mostly because I'm not a socialist to begin with...
But it really bugs me when productive, innovative people get lumped in with the totally incompetent. It's just like typical American tribalism... we're always finding reasons to hate on each other...

Sophia Moore52 said:Well, I suppose to people who haven't built anything themselves, that might sound a bit strange... but the truth is, even US dollars are created by the hard work of laborers; they don't just grow on trees...

The truth is you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

...even US dollars are created by the labor of workers, they don't just grow on trees.

I thought they just printed them at the Federal Reserve.

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.

Socialism was never "the real thing" either, which is why people always find a million excuses to tear it down. It's just the way things go—Klet. 🙂

crimsonwolf21 said:Socialism was never "the real thing" either, which is why people always find a million excuses to tear it down. It's just the way things go—Klet. 🙂

Honestly, even the self-proclaimed socialists can't seem to agree on what "true" socialism actually looks like—and it's not because it's some mythical utopia sitting on a blueprint somewhere, no way. It's because they're dealing with the pure embarrassment that every single, and I mean every single one, attempt has been a spectacular disaster. We're talking tens of millions of lives lost in shallow graves and hundreds of millions more trapped in socialist totalitarianism, living in levels of poverty that you wouldn't even dream of seeing under American capitalism.

It's a tough pill to swallow, ☕

crimsonwolf20 said:Honestly, even the self-proclaimed socialists can't seem to agree on what "true" socialism actually looks like—and it's not because it's some mythical utopia sitting on a blueprint somewhere, no way. It's because they're dealing with the pure embarrassment that every single, and I mean every single one, attempt has been a spectacular disaster. We're talking tens of millions of lives lost in shallow graves and hundreds of millions more trapped in socialist totalitarianism, living in levels of poverty that you wouldn't even dream of seeing under American capitalism.

It's a tough pill to swallow, ☕

Capitalism has pushed billions into poverty just so the top 1% can grab more than half of the world's wealth... something unseen even back in the feudal era

Honestly, if you look at history, humanity has never seen this much material wealth as we’re seeing right now! I mean, seriously—the standard of living for your average American today absolutely crushes what even the richest European count could have dreamed of back in the 1600s. We aren't talking about the old days where kids were literally starving to death right in front of their parents—that is ancient history now. Even infant mortality rates are plummeting every single year, sitting at around 2% globally right now, which is basically the lowest it's ever been in human history. On top of that, life expectancy just keeps climbing higher and higher. People are healthier, stronger, taller, living longer, and way more educated than any generation before us. And honestly? All of this is the direct result of the free market and capitalism in action.

Because the market is so competitive, the Western world has hit this insane level of technological progress that’s moving at breakneck speed. Think about it—airplanes, cars, smartphones, advanced medical tech... we aren't just talking about stuff that sci-fi writers 50 years ago couldn't even wrap their heads around, but it's actually *accessible* to everyone. Thanks to capitalism, it's almost impossible to find someone without a cell phone or a house without internet, and most folks working entry-level jobs are out there driving their own cars.

http://www.labor-front.com

The world is constantly evolving, and there’s no denying that capitalism was a massive leap forward compared to the old feudal systems... but its era is drawing to a close, much like all the structures that came before it

Sophia Moore52 said:The world is constantly evolving, and there’s no denying that capitalism was a massive leap forward compared to the old feudal systems... but its era is drawing to a close, much like all the structures that came before it

It really isn't, my friend!

Sophia Moore52 said:The world is constantly evolving, and there’s no denying that capitalism was a massive leap forward compared to the old feudal systems... but its era is drawing to a close, much like all the structures that came before it

Oh, hold on there, my friend—you’ve got it all wrong! If you look at the big picture, nothing truly massive has changed for about 10,000 years. I mean, think about it—the daily grind for an average farmer in the 1700s wasn't all that different from how they lived back in the 1400s, or even the 1100s, or the 200s, or the 2nd century!

But man, talk about a sudden jump! We've seen this insane explosion of progress—like, a total skyrocketing of living standards and tech innovations that people couldn't even dream up in their wildest fantasies—all packed into just the last 200 years. In that tiny window, we basically went from riding horses to boarding spacecraft. It's wild!

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kru...600_2003_2.gif

And honestly? All of this was made possible because of capitalism, the free market, and the power of private initiative.

crimsonwolf20 Asks:
It just isn't working, you novice. For ten thousand years, nothing truly significant has changed... the life of an average farmer in the 17th century was barely different from one in the 14th, the 11th, or even back in the 2nd century...

It’s truly incredible how much we've achieved. In just two centuries, our quality of life has skyrocketed alongside technological leaps that once seemed like pure science fiction. We've essentially traded horses for starships...

This was all made possible by the rise of capitalism, the free market, and private enterprise...

unknown, did you even go to school? Seriously...

Oh, please, quit whining, you clueless amateur.

crimsonwolf20 said:Oh, please, quit whining, you clueless amateur.

So, besides skipping school—congrats to unknown for pointing that out ages ago—you're also just naturally rude? 😂

Oh, please, you’re totally right—the world was just as loaded back in 1665 as it was in 1995, obviously. 🤦

crimsonwolf20 said:Oh, please, you’re totally right—the world was just as loaded back in 1665 as it was in 1995, obviously. 🤦

Well, if you had paid more attention in school, you'd realize I didn't say what you think I said. My point was simply that the world in 1995 was wealthier than in 1665, though 1665 was still much better than 1065

It seems you're having a bit of trouble following my logic...

Sophia Moore52 said:Well, if you had paid more attention in school, you'd realize I didn't say what you think I said. My point was simply that the world in 1995 was wealthier than in 1665, though 1665 was still much better than 1065

It seems you're having a bit of trouble following my logic...

You're missing the mark again. For the vast majority of people—the agrarian peasantry—hardly anything changed between 1065 and 1665. They were stuck in these brutal cycles of mere survival punctuated by mass famine, a reality that Malthus famously wrote about. Real progress only started taking root in the cities among craftsmen and merchants. But even when you account for that, it doesn't compare to the explosion triggered by the rise of capitalism, which boosted standards by some 20 to 30 times just based on GDP—and honestly, it's much higher than that, since you can't truly quantify the massive drop in child mortality and the overall leap in quality of life.

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.

Sure, maybe some ultra-successful American tycoon is thrilled by the idea. But let’s be honest about how things work here in the States—local capitalists aren't exactly jumping for joy at the prospect, because once you introduce real accountability, there’s suddenly nothing left to skim off the top.
In principle, those companies that actually managed to pull off employee stock ownership programs only did so after the "new money" bosses had finished bleeding them dry and brought everything down to a mediocre baseline. It was basically a desperate move by the workers to save their own jobs from being gutted.
A few examples:
An electrode plant in a town like Columbus
Zaprešić

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Sure, maybe some ultra-successful American tycoon is thrilled by the idea. But let’s be honest about how things work here in the States—local capitalists aren't exactly jumping for joy at the prospect, because once you introduce real accountability, there’s suddenly nothing left to skim off the top.
In principle, those companies that actually managed to pull off employee stock ownership programs only did so after the "new money" bosses had finished bleeding them dry and brought everything down to a mediocre baseline. It was basically a desperate move by the workers to save their own jobs from being gutted.
A few examples:
An electrode plant in a town like Columbus
Zaprešić

I'm willing to nagađati what the response from the crowd will be:

"Sure, but American capitalists aren't the real deal—they're actually socialists in disguise. In America, it isn't true capitalism; it's actually socialism."

😁

nimblemarlin6 said:I'm willing to nagađati what the response from the crowd will be:

"Sure, but American capitalists aren't the real deal—they're actually socialists in disguise. In America, it isn't true capitalism; it's actually socialism."

😁

Nah, you’ve totally mixed things up with that classic socialist excuse about why socialism fails everywhere and every single time.

You socialists are always the ones claiming that "true" socialism has never actually existed—arguing that those socialist sociopaths and dictators weren't the "real" deal—so then you retreat into these tired clichés about an American conspiracy, sanctions, Western saboteurs, or bad actors being at the top of the socialist power pyramid every time. It's the go-to move, right? Because otherwise, there's no other way to explain why your centrally planned paradise on earth consistently turns out to be a literal hellscape that impoverishes and ruins billions of unlucky souls who just happened to be born into these unnatural social experiments under the boot of socialist totalitarianism.

At the end of the day, people are people. American "capitalists" (whatever that even means—capitalism isn't some mystical cult, it's just the natural, voluntary exchange of value for value) and socialists are all humans. Everyone is greedy, selfish, good, bad, kind, cruel, or whatever else you want to throw at them. There's no such thing as "real" capitalists; there's just a rule of law that sets up the framework where a free market can actually function—a state that punishes crime and protects private property.

In America, that often doesn't exist, which is a massive failure by politicians—people are going to exploit any gap in the system for their own gain, whether they call themselves "capitalists" or socialists. People are people! If there's an opportunity, they'll grab it. And if the government is incompetent, sluggish, and meddling in the market in a million different ways—hey, that's great for them! It just gives them way more room to maneuver and pull shady deals compared to a minimal government with limited authority.