trailing9

joined 1 year ago
[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Cooperatives don't have to pay owners nor a management layer. Workers also shouldn't slack. These advantages should overcome the benefits of exploitation.

Ussr won space race and lost the microchip race. The availability of cad systems created a big advantage.

Capitalism is not inherently self destructive. Exponential growth is only needed if all investors should succeed. That's not necessary.

Capitalism will thrive when times get tough because the majority will choose to compete instead of cooperate. Cooperatives could create space for those who want to cooperate.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (21 children)

It's interesting that 3 people seem to disagree with you without telling you why. I also would like to know why they reject your detailed comment.

Unfortunately I cannot agree with you about my lack of knowledge. I believe in cooperatives despite the valid problems that you have mentioned.

If the capital class turns full fascism to destroy cooperatives then you have your revolution. But for capitalism, cooperatives are just another member of the capital owning class. Everybody wants a monopoly but not everybody gets it.

The key problem is the reserve army of labor. If cooperatives show some restraint and don't destroy labor market rates by cornering markets themselves and distributing that surplus, then capitalism can continue uninterrupted. Not everybody wants to participate in discussions as much as cooperatives require.

If everybody wants to be a socialist then cooperatives should even create incentives to maintain capitalism. That's where I lack knowledge. I don't see how value can be determined without competition. Do we want a society without value?

Let the capitalists have their boats. You need people who dedicate their lives to business processes. There is enough value created when there is a choice to work in a socialist cooperative. Communism is not only prevented by capitalists but also by the people themselves who don't vote differently. Capitalists work with those weaknesses while communists hope that they are not a problem.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (23 children)

What I meant with the lack of industrialization is that those revolutions could be fought with rifles. Today you need tanks and drones. Any revolution is interrupted by cutting global supply lines.

Cooperatives don't have to be dominant. It could be that people prefer to work in classical hierarchies. There should just be so many cooperatives that whoever wants to live a socialist life can find a place to do so.

I indeed believe that revolution is not needed. There is no unified capital owning class. If you don't change the political system and let them have their power, why should they waste resources on fighting cooperatives?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It's interesting that parents prefer to maintain their own space.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (25 children)

You can't tell because I am arguing.for a position that communists somehow want to ignore.

For a communist revolution today the means of production are already necessary. Russia and China were possible because they were not industrialized.

Are there capitalist relations within a cooperative? If not then why do you need a revolution when everything is already there?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (27 children)

What can you do with a communist revolution that you cannot do with cooperatives, apart from using violence?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was nowhere near that cow!

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (29 children)

Does difficulty matter? Any communist revolution will be more difficult than establishing a network of cooperatives. I believe that if there is a desire for Socialism, people will spend the time to establish cooperatives.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (31 children)

We simply talk about different things. Initial funding comes with different risks.

I think established cooperatives should issue bonds for expansion.

New cooperatives cannot issue bonds because nobody can judge the risk. They have to do a startup and sell shares in a company that owns the assets. But why should the founders limit themselves and do the opposite of Zuckerberg and give their influence away by just owning one vote in the participating cooperative?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

How is UBI linked to trash?

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (33 children)

Ok, you were convinced. I mean the search for how to finance cooperatives should only be done when investors don't hesitate to buy cooperative bonds.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (35 children)

It's not new but also not tried in a convincing way.

I believe that it is possible and that it's worth trying until a working combination is found.

view more: ‹ prev next ›