Can anyone name one thing in the Creation that does not change? Is not the climate an element of the Creation? Therefore, how is it that a person [other than a "Phobic-D" type personality] would view climate change as unusual? — 1 Brother James

There is no argument about climate change.
12.000 years ago there was an ice age, it has been warming since that time in history!
The purpose of political parties and religion is to divide people, create fear of the other group,
and fundraise. — Rxspence

Interesting that my post would elicit a political response, given by two "recent" members.

Yes, climate is an element of creation. Nuclear weapons are elements of creation. Should we not be cautious about them? Should we not understand the science beyond them, and the severity of the consequences if left unchecked?

The issue is not the change, but the rate of change. Yes, the climate has changed throughout a long history -- 4 billion years or so. But modern human beings have only been around about 200,000. In that time, but especially the last 12,000 years since the invention of farming, CO2 and warming haven't occurred to this degree. When you flash forward a few millennia to when scientific instruments were used deliberately to measure CO2, in the late 1800s, you have a very definite trend. Easy to see:

Worth taking a look around.

* A huge fire in Siberia is casting out smoke for 3,000 miles.
* Greece – burning.
* California – burning.
* Oregon – burning.
* Historic flooding in Germany and Belgium.
* Italy just experienced the hottest European day ever.
* July 2021 is the hottest month ever recorded.
* Drought and extreme weather disturbances are cutting food production, increasing hunger and raising food prices worldwide.
* Rising sea levels threaten Miami, New York, Charleston and countless coastal cities around the world in the not-to-distant future.

The above is from a Bernie tweet, but it's a good synopsis. This isn't the world I remember from the 80s and 90s, or even the 2000s. We've wasted 30 years thanks to the same stall tactics the tobacco industry used and which the fossil fuel lobby is now using.

Krugman has two very good articles in the Times worth a read as well:

Who Created the Renewable Energy Miracle?

The Bad Economics of Fossil Fuel Defenders

Of course, these facts won’t change Republican minds. It’s painfully obvious that politicians opposing climate action aren’t arguing in good faith; they’ve effectively decided to block any and all measures to ward off disaster and will use whatever excuses they can find to justify their position.

Why has the G.O.P. become the party of pollution? I used to think that it was mainly about money; in the 2020 election cycle Republicans received 84 percent of political contributions from the oil and gas industry and 96 percent of contributions from coal mining.

And money is surely part of the story. But I now think there’s more to it than that. Like pandemic policy, where the G.O.P. has effectively allied itself with the coronavirus, climate policy has become a front in the culture war; there’s a sense on the right that real men disdain renewable energy and love burning fossil fuels. Look at the dishonest attempts to blame wind farms for Texas blackouts actually caused by freezing pipelines.

In any case, what you need to know is that claims that taking on climate change would be an economic disaster are as much at odds with the evidence as claims that the climate isn’t changing. — Paul Krugman

"What conceptions of wealth drive today's economic activity — James Laughlin

A good question, yes. Related to the structure of a corporation, indirectly.

I'd argue the predominant conception of "wealth" is one based in material accumulation -- in this case, the accumulation of capital. That's seen as wealth, and wealth is a means to power.

Today, there is also the tendency to regard nationalization and privatization of industries and services as efforts aimed at redistribution. This is not so at all. — James Laughlin

It mostly only results in concentration of wealth. — James Laughlin

Which is redistribution, and which is what we see. The policies of neoliberalism -- small government, deregulation, privatization, etc. -- have lead to a massive redistribution from more egalitarian (50s, 60s) to extreme inequality. RAND corporation published a study on the numbers, and it's in the tens of trillions.

You'd get the same response here selling time shares in Narnia. — Cheshire

Actually the response has been quite good. You and NOS must be misunderstood defenders of truth. :wink:

The solution you are offering is an old one. Basically, force companies into being their own labor union or something of the sort. — Cheshire

No no. I don’t want to do anything of the kind. It’s true I value labor unions, but I don’t want to force anything. I’d like removing, in fact, some laws and regulations that are anti-union and anti-worker. But this isn't about coming in with guns and forcibly taking things over -- at least not in my thinking.

Fundamentally I want the business world to continue being capitalist if they want to, but to change the ideology back to managerialism and away from shareholder primacy, strengthen good unions, and open the space for more cooperatives. I think this is the most realistic option we have. The ultimate goal in the long term would be to dismantle illegitimate power structures altogether -- but that can't and won't happen overnight, or even in a few generations.

The era of managerialism saw the highest growth rates, and worker wages keeping up with productivity. Also has much higher union membership. This was before the financialization of the economy happened and big banks doubled in size. There’s no reason we can’t get back to that era.

You are right about the fact a problem exist, but what's needed is an innovative solution that functions with the rest of the economic forces in play. — Cheshire

Yes, of course. Just like what happens now. But those solutions aren’t working— which is why you mentioned “innovative”, I’m sure, and with which I agree. I think we need innovative solutions too. I’m trying to promote some of those solutions (again, not my own).

To be concrete: if wages at a company are low (compared to comparable work elsewhere), this puts them at a disadvantage— they’re more likely to have higher turnover rates, worse morale, lack of applicants, reputational damage (especially true these days where you can research a company online before applying, including worker reviews), etc. On the other hand, there are budgetary constraints — pay the workers too much, and the company may get squeezed or even put into debt, given that profit margins aren’t always the same.

It’s a complex situation, no doubt. The problem, according to research I cited by Lazonick and others, is that these decisions are being made on the basis of shareholder primacy theory. That is:

(1) under the idea that the shareholder is the owner (or partial owner) of the company (which we talked about, but let’s assume that’s true);

(2) thus the responsibility of the board of directors is to prioritize the shareholders’ aims;

(3) and that what shareholders want is to make a profit.

Therefore the responsibility of the company is to make a profit for shareholders. As you know, this was basically Friedman’s title of his famous 1970 article.

I agree with Lazonick that this is a problem. We’re seeing record profits and stagnating wages because most of the profits have been spent on buybacks and dividends— and why? Not because businessmen are evil and don’t care about their employees or community, but because this theory tells them this is what one's duties are.

More importantly, they mistake this theory for the law, and this is a myth. There’s no legal basis for shareholder primacy.

So in the end, it’s a matter of a “bad religion,” so to speak, and one that isn’t working for anybody, except for a handful of people in the short term — as can be seen when this "neoliberal era" (roughly 1980-today) is compared against the era from 1949-1979. It's a matter of ideology, which is why I've argued elsewhere (in "The State, Church, Corporation" thread) that the real power isn't necessarily in Washington or Wall Street, but in the Church of Neoliberal Capitalism.

It wouldn't make sense to say a companies profits go to wages, because those aren't profits by definition. — Cheshire

True, wages aren’t profits. When I said that I was thinking it would be clear I meant a raise in wages— i.e., giving the workers more— but fair enough.

In fact, all profits go to dividends or retained earnings or a reduction in retained earnings from treasury stock transactions. — Cheshire

No. Profits can be reinvested in the company by building new factories, buying more equipment, renovation, research, etc. They can also go to increasing worker salaries, to dividends, or to stock buybacks.

The answer is: stock buybacks. That’s where the profits are going. 94% go to this or dividends. Doesn’t leave much for the peon workers. At least since the 80s, thanks to Reagan’s administration— operating on the assumptions proposed by Milton Friedman.

(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?

(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products) — Xtrix

I meant to put numbers on the answer:

Percent of earnings (2007-2016)

55% stock buybacks
39% dividends
6% everything else

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lazonick.pdf

Confusing having a vote with ownership, control and autonomy is little more than casuistry in my mind. — NOS4A2

True -- as is also true when we vote for politicians. But that's a step above having no vote whatsoever. Furthermore, I'm not confusing the two. In worker co-ops, the workers are the "owners" (meaning they are their own board of directors). Plenty of real world examples; very successful (despite US laws making it much harder to form).

Mondragon (of Spain) is usually a standard example. A lot to learn from them. They're worker owned and partly worker managed (meaning they also hire outside mangers).

The problem is, unlike yourself and 180proof, I am incapable of envy and don’t feel entitled to owning someone else’s business. — NOS4A2

No one is talking about envy or owning someone else's business. This is a matter of corporate governance -- how corporations are organized. There's no reason why workers shouldn't have more say in decision making (including where the profits go) -- i.e., on the board of directors -- since they are also major stakeholders in the company (along with bond holders, shareholders, the community, etc). There's also no reason that workers who run the factories can't also own the factories (for example, given the option to buy a plant that the corporation chooses to close).

Besides, corporations aren't legally "owned" by anyone.

Just the fact that your instinct is to consistently argue against anything that would be beneficial for workers, society, or the environment, is why I repeat the sentiment, however harsh, that this old, destructive ideology you embody needs to die off with you and your ilk. Because it's apparent you're never going to wake up -- the Cold War propaganda has too much of a hold on you.

A History of America in Ten Strikes

Erik Loomis

The Epic of Gilgamesh - the most ancient recorded story — Pantagruel

And an awesome story, too. Should be required reading.

Most people see themselves as good. This is just not the case. I think we are born with both potentials but tilt towards evil. Anything too add? — Caleb Mercado

Yes: what is meant by “good” and “evil”?

Before that’s answered, we’re talking passed each other.

Ok, your response above was good and I got it. We avoided here stupid misunderstandings and bickering. (We will leave that to the future issues and topics :wink: ) — ssu

Appreciate the kind comments. Caught me on an off day— I’m sure I’ll be back to being an asshole soon enough.

This transforms the corporation from being lead by founders to a high paid caste of professional leader-employees taking over the corporation. The corporations becomes dis-attached from humans as owners. Large family owned corporations are rare, even if there are those still. — ssu

Right, and even private corporations are fairly rare.

Once a company goes public, it’s not as if every decision changes with the aim of maximizing stock prices and dividends. The Microsoft and Apple examples are good ones — who knows how they look in 15 years or so?

Good, so a worker-owner is a nonsense term by your own reasoning. — Cheshire

Not nonsense, just legally wrong. But it's true, I do use it to refer to workers (rather than shareholders) being the "owners" of the company, because that's the conventional view and common language. But yes, legally speak it's not correct.

The shareholders are not the owners of corporations.
— Xtrix
This doesn't make sense. I assume you mean here that the shareholders aren't in charge of corporations. — ssu

I know, it's a weird one. I had difficulty with it at first, but this isn't my own theory -- I'm basing this on legal scholarship. The late Lynn Stout of Cornell has good work on this. Here's Richard Booth:

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3350&context=cklawreview

Yes, the shareholders aren't legally in charge of the company. They are also not the legal owners. To make it easier to talk about, we speak about "share of ownership" and things like that, but it's legally erroneous. I myself didn't realize how prevalent this mistake is, in fact.

The ordinary argument goes that as the shareholders elect the board of directors, they have the ultimate power. This is perhaps what you call "The shareholder primacy theory" or am I mistaken? — ssu

You're exactly right. It's absolutely dominant -- which is partly why this is so hard to talk about.

Here again I'm talking about legality, not what happens in practice. You would certainly think that, because shareholders have the power to vote in board members, that they just vote in people who share their views, and vote themselves in -- and that's true. But it's also more complicated than that, because rarely is one person or company the controlling shareholder.

I think the reason boards actually DO act in accord with what shareholders supposedly want is precisely because of the shareholder primacy doctrine. It's on par with a system of belief -- one that's become entrenched in boardrooms and the business world generally.

Here's Stout, who explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jdJFrG6NY

Oh, so the meaning of ownership changes when your position changes. — Cheshire

No.

All of a sudden that legal sense in regards to legal liability and direction of assets is a hologram. — Cheshire

No. Shareholders being the owners of a corporation is a hologram.

Which is it? Is a corporation owned or not by actual people. — Cheshire

A corporation is not owned by anyone; a corporation, by law, as a legal person, owns itself. Persons, legal or otherwise, cannot be owned -- at least since we got rid of slavery.

The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. Neither are the board of directors, who run the company. The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. There are plenty of court cases about this as well.
— Xtrix

Fascinating. Now, tell me how they are different than worker-owners? — Cheshire

Well compare Microsoft to Mondragon, for example. Both corporations. One (it's claimed) is owned by shareholders, the other (also claimed) by workers.

What does it look like in reality? The major difference is that the board of directors in the former are elected by shareholders -- more shares, more votes, and so the major shareholders (usually other large corporations, asset managers, occasionally very wealthy individuals, etc) vote in the directors (technically, although in reality the directors basically elect themselves due to almost never being voted against). In the latter case, the workers are their own board of directors.

It's the board of directors where the major decisions get made about the allocation of resources, the distribution of profits, whether to hire or fire a CEO, whether to give to charities, etc. But that's simply not the same as "ownership." You can't own a legal person. You can certainly control it, run it, manage it -- and that's what really matters anyway.

The shareholder primacy theory is an old one, and for the last 40 or so years has dominated academia (where it came from), journalism, the business world, and popular culture. But it has no basis in law, and has been a complete failure economically -- for investors (shareholders), for corporations themselves, for employees, for the community, and for the environment.

There's plenty of references, if you like.

They are legal entities; that is not a person. — Cheshire

I’ll repeat: corporations are legal persons, not real people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

Look no further than Citizens United to get a clear view of what the Supreme Court thinks of it as well.

The board is elected by the shareholders dumbass — Cheshire

That has nothing to do with ownership, dumbass.

aka the owners of the company. — Cheshire

The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. Neither are the board of directors, who run the company. The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. There are plenty of court cases about this as well.

What they can’t do is steal from the company. That’s illegal.

They are economic entities. Not people. They do not own themselves otherwise a majority shareholder couldn't control them. — Cheshire

They are legal persons, not real persons. And they do own themselves, legally. That’s not the same thing as running itself, which is done by real humans. Mostly the board of directors and CEO.

I'll let my auditing prof. know; it's really gonna shake up the industry. — Cheshire

It should. If your professor believes this, it’s not uncommon. It’s also completely wrong.

Shareholders are owners of shares, which are contracts with the corporation. Corporations own themselves, as legal persons. Again, I’ll go in deeper on this. I’m hoping someone else asks though— clearly you’re too interested in convincing yourself you know everything.

It's the only rational explanation outside of sophomoric rebellion against some one that holds a misunderstanding of a left wing position. — Cheshire

:yawn:

Because shares have nothing to do with ownership.
— Xtrix
You have no idea how companies are owned or sold. — Cheshire

:lol:

Shareholders are not the owners of a corporation, nor do they sell the corporation. If you want me to explain it to you, I will. If you want to posture, that’s your business.

This is why this thread is relevant.

Your presentation is of a left wing position as it's misunderstood by a right wing propogandist. — Cheshire

It’s fun to watch you try to fit what I say into your rather limited categories. Keep trying.

Why not? — Cheshire

Because shares have nothing to do with ownership.

By what strange alchemy does this happen? — hypericin

By the workings of NOS’s brain.

Why are you laughing? That's what happened. — frank

:lol:

Lurched out of stagnation …

I don’t conform to anyone’s decision unless I agree with it. — NOS4A2

How brave. Good for you.

So you’ve never worked in a company or held a job— or you’ve agreed with all the decisions they make. If you’re somewhere in between, as most people are, then you’ve certainly conformed to other’s decisions. You also do so now, in terms of political decisions.

But hold your delusions all you want.

Worker ownership and control = less autonomy, less freedom for workers. Got it. Straight from the inverted reality you inhabit.

“Your conditions are decided by others.” Yes, the fellow workers— democratically and with your input. As opposed to the same thing in a capitalist company, where the boards of directors make those decisions without any input at all from workers. But because you’re free to leave and get another job, the latter is more freedom? News flash: you can leave a co-op too.

If I buy 1 share of Microsoft, do I own Microsoft? — Cheshire

No.

I imply that this ownership is of a limited benefit. — Cheshire

Then say it’s a lie that it matters if workers own the company or not. To claim I’m lying about the FACT that they own the company is wrong — and I have no idea about your implications, because I’m not a mind reader and you’ve said nothing about why it doesn’t matter or is of “limited benefit.” A claim I probably won’t agree with, but if you have evidence I’ll happily take a look.

more than obvious you have a right wing basis. — Cheshire

Worker ownership is right wing? In what world? Maybe the 19th century, I guess. Who knows.

And sure, I could be wrong entirely. That should warrant compassion and guidance not wrath and insult. But again, you just don't seem to want that on those who need it, which is where my agitation comes from. — Outlander

Fine. The question still stands: lack of faith in what? It wasn’t rhetorical.

Y

So why not have just said the "simple answer" from the get go instead of engaging in this pseudo-intellectual hullabaloo of a discussion? — Outlander

Because it’s more fun seeing where people are in their understanding and why. I didn’t insult you for giving a wrong answer.

Plus I prefer not giving lectures. Questions help people think through the topic themselves first. If it turns out they’re mistaken - as you were - that’s not a fault. Attitude is.

Yet the simple fact is that some labor presentation IS CRUCIAL. Just as labor laws are essential for the whole system to work. — ssu

Agreed. Bringing democracy at work, and having the workers own and run the companies themselves, is even more crucial. If we want to improve social conditions, and such massive inequality, improve the environment, stop terrible trade deals, etc., then this strikes at the heart of the matter.

Labor unions and better legislation is also very important indeed.

Hence the labor union issue, or basically the labor movement, isn't a leftist issue. It's simply a rational issue.

Without any collective bargaining the employer and the owner can treat employees as pig shit. Not that all do that, but some surely will if they are given the opportunity. — ssu

Glad we agree.

Thanks. But isn't "corporation" a business term (large company)? Wouldn't the term "organization" fit better? — Alkis Piskas

No. Because I’m talking about the structure of corporations, which is a specific type of institution (or organization).

Anyway, whatever you call it, I don't think that politics have anything to do with corporate administration and management. — Alkis Piskas

Corporate governance is connected to political thinking as well.

On the other hand, "Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government" (Wikipedia) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, and this is corporate governance. But it we reserve politics solely for state government, which is typical, then call this economic philosophy instead— or whatever you like. It doesn’t matter much to me. My goal is to think a little deeper about corporations. That means understanding their structure.

You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination.
— Cheshire

No, that's exactly what you're doing. — Xtrix

Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie. — Cheshire

So I’m selling slavery under the coercive lie that workers “own the place.” Workers ownership is a lie and hallucination. According to you.

Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? — Xtrix

To which the reply is:

Being worker owned is not the same as worker managed. — Cheshire

Lol. The fact that this statement is wrapped in attempts at insulting my intelligence is hilarious.

See if you can follow in simple terms:

1) Mondragon is owned by its workers. As you mention.

2) You claim it’s a hallucination and lie that workers own anything.

3) I point out that Mondragon is owned by workers— and is not a lie, but a fact (see 1).

4) You call me naïve and state that Mondragon is not worker managed.

I try not to be mean, or an intellectual bully, but this is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. Being angry at me being an asshole doesn’t change when I also happen to be right. In this case, it’s obvious. Mondragon is owned by workers. That’s not a lie. Period. Whatever else you meant by that, who knows. But they’re owned by their workers, which is not a lie. Get it? Or do you want to continue resorting to a strange irrationality?

Let’s see if people on the internet are still capable of acknowledging reality, even when angry…

It's about giving everyone a vote for leadership positions and having workers elect the board of directors rather than investors.
— Xtrix
And you really think that is the silver bullet? — ssu

Is this a serious question?

No, of course it's not a silver bullet. But it's an important place to start. Assuming we value democracy and the empowerment of working people.

At least here there are. I think many of these issues seem to be basic issues that ought to be covered by labor laws. Starting from the fact that workers are heard about things concerning their jobs and salary as one entity too. — ssu

That would be great too, of course. Right now there's none of that -- in a capitalist-run corporation. You have no say, no input, no vote. You can complain to your manager if you want to, but good luck with that. You have no access to corporate boardrooms, no representation on the board, no vote for the board, and so absolutely no say in the major decisions of the company in which you work and produce profits for.

Am I considered for membership within a cooperative that you are a part of? Probably not. — thewonder

? It's not like it's a club, for God's sakes. We're talking about a form of organizing a business.

You, I think, are a left-wing liberal who has characterized cooperatives as being a-political so as to broaden your potential support base, which is just fine, but does kind of leave us out in the process. — thewonder

I have not once characterized cooperatives as a-political. I'm sure the workers within a cooperative have plenty of ideas about politics. Same with any fortune 500 corporation, for that matter. I'm simply talking about how the corporation is structured. Do you know anything about that or not? Are you capable of answering the above questions, or not? If you'd rather insist on diverting the discussion into something that interests you, or that you think you're knowledgable about, fine. But then don't whine when people ignore you.

Inefficiency in a production setting reduces the profits available for distribution to the workers. It is a dumb way to run an operation. Which is why none are run this way. — Cheshire

Cooperatives exist all over, and are run exactly that way.

And to argue that capitalism is "efficient" is beyond laughable. Efficient for shareholders, no doubt. But not for anyone else. In fact it's destructive.

Which is why you see the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable themselves rejecting this notion in favor of "stakeholder capitalism."

Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done.
— Xtrix
Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine. — Cheshire

No, I do get it. More tired, boring capitalist ideas to solve capitalism: "free-er markets!" "More competition!" Yet again more Milton Friedman bullshit. Tired, failed, simplistic thinking. But you're welcome to your zombie ideas.

Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie. — Cheshire

Are you just an idiot? Apparently. Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? Then why repeat the lie:

They are worker-owned but not managed. — Cheshire

You liar you. How can you say they're "worker owned" -- don't you know that's an illusion!

:lol:

Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so.
— Xtrix
Yes, because they are stupid ideas. — Cheshire

Democracy is a stupid idea. Co-ops are a stupid idea. Interesting perspective. :smirk:

I'll take the word of those who work in co-ops over yours any day.

If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder — Cheshire

This is almost laughable. This would "break capitalism," eh? And you have the gall to accuse anyone of "stupid ideas"?

If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. — Cheshire

Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done.

You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination. — Cheshire

No, that's exactly what you're doing. Speaking of "stupid ideas."

"I'm advocating against the capitalist form of corporate governance. Plain and simple."

If you're too indoctrinated to understand what this means, then there's no point pretending to have a discussion.

The shortest definition for anarchism is "libertarian socialism". — thewonder

According to who?

Doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant.

My point about cooperatives is that they do have a history that relates to anarchism, as the creator of the Mondragon Corporation narrowly escaped the firing squad during the Spanish Civil War. — thewonder

Yes and Lenin had ties to Marx, and Biden has ties to Adam Smith, and I have ties to Fundamentalist Christianity. Fine. Now let's discuss the corporation.

My personal kvetch against this a-political, but anti-capitalist initiative that you have proposed is that you seem to want participatory economics, a libertarian socialist idea, without any libertarian socialists involved. — thewonder

Everyone is welcome, and everyone can be involved. I don't care what you call yourself. You're anarchist? Wonderful. Libertarian? Socialist? Communist? Conservative? Liberal? Makes no difference to me. I work with people from not only different political views, but religious as well -- from all kinds of cultures. What's the problem?

I really don't understand why it is that you feel a need to make consistent demeaning quips — thewonder

Sorry, but I thought that was pretty factual. I think you yourself have mentioned something to that effect -- that you wonder off topic, that your posts are long, etc. You're also not a great writer or communicator of your ideas. I'm not much better, and don't have anything else to say about you as an individual because I don't know you.

Neoliberals stepped in, broke the labor unions, created incentives for investment and the economy lurched forward out of stagnation — frank

:rofl:

It's not and I know, because I worked in metal box in 110F making other people rich. — Cheshire

Which proves how well indoctrination works. To convince the slaves to love their slavery is an impressive feat, begging your pardon. I don't fault you for it.

Then sat through more sociology and economics lectures than you are aware of exist. — Cheshire

I don't consider this a merit. It probably accounts for the false consciousness you demonstrate.

Pretending a capitalist enterprise hangs co-op on the door will fix anything is the result of not knowing enough to understand your wrong. — Cheshire

You just aren't understanding what I'm saying, I'm afraid. I never once advocated for a capitalist enterprise window-dressing by claiming it's a co-op. Of course that wouldn't fix anything.

I'm advocating against the capitalist form of corporate governance. Plain and simple.

Yes, there is a problem. No, this is not the simple solution. — Cheshire

I don't think there are simple solutions either. Moving out of feudalism wasn't simple or quick or easy either. Ditto slavery. Ditto monarchy. These things take a long time, lots of discussions, lots of mistakes, lots of failures and successes over long periods of time. The co-op model is one alternative to a capitalist-run corporation, and I point that out because it's practical and provides demonstrable insights into alternative ways of running businesses. That's all. No magic bullet, no perfection, no utopia.

You are an asset to people that want to show the unreasonable nature of the opposition. You are helping your masters. — Cheshire

Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so.

:roll:

Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions.
— Xtrix

Please do not offer me the pretense of knowledge that you have over a political philosophy that you do not support again. — thewonder

Since the term "anarchism" is meaningless until it's explained, I have nothing to support. Certainly not here, which is not the topic under discussion, which is the structure of corporations. If you want to ramble on about your vast knowledge about anarchism, you're welcome to. This is why you repeatedly get ignored.

Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work.
— Xtrix

While that may sound very reasonable and open-minded, it just simply is not true. — thewonder

Yes, it is true. I know conservatives, Republicans, blue-collar workers, White-collar workers, and everyone in between, who want more say in their jobs, who want better wages, who want job security, a better work environment, etc. Most importantly, they don't give a damn about labels. The fact that you do, and want to turn this into a discussion about anarchism, is your own issue.

you will find that such ideas are considered to be "left-wing", if not even "radical". — thewonder

I don't care what they're labeled. Listen to conservative media --according to them, helping an old lady across the street is considered socialist. The infrastructure bill is being called "socialist," etc. Who cares?

Sorry, I stopped reading your post at this point. Too long -- and you haven't earned the assumption of relevance.

But, you believe it is a representative democracy. — Cheshire

No.

It is both worker owned and partly worker managed. Not all the managers are from the workforce -- some are brought from outside. Who decides that? The workers who own the company, of course.

So, here's the secret. A co-op is a way to get people to work harder from less money with the belief they own something. — Cheshire

They're paid better than most corporations, actually; and they don't "believe" they own something, they do own something: namely, the company. You said so yourself. So who's contradicting himself?

But, if they lose that job can they sell off the mill they were running? No, cause they don't own anything. — Cheshire

But they do. You're simply living in a dreamworld I guess.

I admire your vigor for your bad argument and intolerable persona. — Cheshire

I admire your attempt to cover for the fact that you're struggling to understand all of this. Fairly common, though.

It's quite simple: democracy at work. We're for it or against it. If you're against it, then by all means be happy with working at companies in which you have absolutely no say, for a wage determined by people who make more in an hour than you make in a year, Uncle Tom.

Personally I wouldn’t want to work at a cooperative because I would have to conform to the decisions of the majority, whether I agreed with them or not. That, to me, isn’t “by the people, for the people”, but “by the majority, for the majority”. — NOS4A2

Yes, we know you're not in favor of democracy. You've made that clear many times. You prefer rule of the minority, the elites, over the majority. That's what we have in corporations, that's (almost) what we have in government (Republicans being a good example).

You prefer to conform to the decisions of a handful of people at the top, whether you agree with them or not. But that's because you're the Forum idiot, as demonstrated over and over again. (Forgive me for the frank accuracy.)

But I’m sure it would be a nice place to work for the conformist. — NOS4A2

No, just for those who believe in democracy over plutocracy, and prefer to have a say in where they work rather than take orders from corporate masters. But like I said -- each his own. We all know you prefer licking the ass of your masters, you "non-conformist" you. Be happy with that.

The American idea of democracy, as far as I understand it, is about obtaining a position of power through the majority of votes. This is how a capitalist corporation can be democratic. — baker

Right, exactly. Easy.

It's simply moving democracy into the workplace.

Much like democracy in the political sphere, it does not mean workers vote on every little decision, or that someone who cleans the office has to share duties with someone in accounting. It also doesn't mean there are no such things as managers, supervisors, etc. It simply is cutting out what's not necessary: outside owners. There can still be investors, stocks can still be issued, etc., but the people making the decisions (the board of directors) and the people managing daily operations (CEO, presidents) are voted in by the workers, not by shareholders.