co-ops

[latefordinner]

again I say look at Mondragon, they are a good example of a very large multinational "cooperative corporation" (I think they do about $5bil worth of business annually) that are both competing in the global capitalist market and also trying to balance that with cooperative principles.(certainly with some tension and some failures and many successes)

I think it is a model that ACers would find very interesting as in my mind it is sort of an amalgamation of different AC and AS principles that are being put into practice with some concessions to a State Capitalist marketplace.
--

hmk: sorry but I don't think the failures of your collective living situation are a very relevant point. I could point to lots of examples where the same model has worked quite well where the collective members themselves recognized certain problems relating to accountability or incentives or fairness or whatever and found a way to resolve them while still remaining true to their principles.

In fact, I bet if you take any member of the Federation of Egalitarian Communities that has been a community for more than 5 years there has been a significant problem at some point in that 5 years relating in a direct or tangential way to some of the issues you all found that was successfully resolved.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a model that ACers would find very interesting as in my mind it is sort of an amalgamation of different AC and AS principles that are being put into practice with some concessions to a State Capitalist marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Employee owned companies are actually owned by their employees, which puts them squarely in line with free market principles and diametrically opposed to socialist principles, anarcho- or otherwise.

[latefordinner]

boro: your response shows an incomplete understanding of socialism in that some variants of socialism advocate for use-based ownership rights - that is the means of production are always equally owned by the workers and only the workers. (whereas others of course advocate for community ownership or state ownership)

you may argue, for example, that mutualism is a variant of capitalism, but since it does not recognize either landlords or investors (or lenders) as being legitimate occupations, it's certainly not in tune with my understanding of what many of you refer to as AC.

[NT!]

hmk,

I know what you mean, and I echoed some of those sentiments in my earlier post. This particular co-op is probably more successful, however, because it also provides a superior product. I would shop there regardless of its ownership structure.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
boro: your response shows an incomplete understanding of socialism in that some variants of socialism advocate for use-based ownership rights - that is the means of production are always equally owned by the workers and only the workers. (whereas others of course advocate for community ownership or state ownership)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so.

[ QUOTE ]
you may argue, for example, that mutualism is a variant of capitalism, but since it does not recognize either landlords or investors (or lenders) as being legitimate occupations, it's certainly not in tune with my understanding of what many of you refer to as AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not argue mutualism is a variant of capitalism.

[latefordinner]

well they believe in markets as opposed to planning and have a pretty expansive definition of ownership as well, so by your definition they certainly aren't socialist.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
well they believe in markets as opposed to planning and have a pretty expansive definition of ownership as well, so by your definition they certainly aren't socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, since they obviously don't believe in private ownership of all orders of goods, including land, by my definition they certainly are socialist. However, I will not argue that "my" definition is somehow the currently orthodox one.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
hmk,

I know what you mean, and I echoed some of those sentiments in my earlier post. This particular co-op is probably more successful, however, because it also provides a superior product. I would shop there regardless of its ownership structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, kudos to them! Personally I think it would be pretty cool if more co-ops starting popping up in the market.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
boro: your response shows an incomplete understanding of socialism in that some variants of socialism advocate for use-based ownership rights - that is the means of production are always equally owned by the workers and only the workers. (whereas others of course advocate for community ownership or state ownership)

you may argue, for example, that mutualism is a variant of capitalism, but since it does not recognize either landlords or investors (or lenders) as being legitimate occupations, it's certainly not in tune with my understanding of what many of you refer to as AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mutualism doesn't recognize anything, since it isn't an actor. But what gives the adherents of mutualism the legitimate authority to decide what occupations are "legitimate" and which are not?

Also, still wondering if hotels are exploitative or not.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
you may argue, for example, that mutualism is a variant of capitalism, but since it does not recognize either landlords or investors (or lenders) as being legitimate occupations, it's certainly not in tune with my understanding of what many of you refer to as AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mutualism doesn't make any sense. Last time someone was trying to argue in favor of it around here, they couldn't explain why this arbitrary line where some things people wants were good and others bad was a good thing.