co-ops

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
My idea the the "common capitalist," Slugger, comes from common lexicon,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's where you're wrong. You just think it's common because that's the way you learned it, and when you use it that way with people who who learn a different "common" meaning, all you do is create confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Nit,

[/ QUOTE ]

So if people are having problems trying to communicate with you and working to solve those problems, you randomly insult them? Yeah, that makes sense.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
For what reason does the market in general select against them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shake,

I'm not sure the market does select against them; it would be hard to say, since there is no free market to speak of.

As NT points out there's LOTS of barriers making it difficult for co-op style businesses/communities/etc. (not the least of which is the fact that government confers countless benefits upon wal-mart style corporations).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
A related question I have is: What stops socialists from forming socialist societies today under a capitalist system? Nothing as far as I can tell really prevents people of like belief to form a self-sufficient society, reject capital, enforce equality, whatever. And I don't mean that to be smug. In fact, I would be interested in living in a voluntary commune, but one that I have the option to leave if I think powers are being abused.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, nothing stops socialists from getting together and forming a commune. No ACist on this board is against that, and actually I think quite a few of them would actually want to live in one.

I personally have had some bad experience with this type of living. I shared a house for a semester with five other uber-leftist hippies, and we tried to make it a true communal experience. You bought what you could for the house when you had money, and you took what you needed when you were hungry, thirsty or whatever.

It started off pretty well, but we started running into some problems in a few weeks. Food kept running out because no one bought any groceries (unless there was a party, in which case we'd have a lot of junk food). But any cereals or canned or packaged goods would get eaten quickly (we had some very stimulated appetites!), making it kind of pointless to spend money on a box of food. Everyone started just eating out and bringing their take-out home. This was pretty costly too, since we weren't making much and would have been better off buying groceries, but everyone shirked the issue saying "hey man, let's go out and get a burger." Eventually this started happen with other things, and the house turned into a dorm with everyone stashing their stuff under their own beds.

The funniest experiment in communal ownership of property was the time we tried communal weed. Everyone pitched in their equal share for the quap and just smoked it when they wanted to get high. We put David Copperfield's disappearance tricks to shame. Thankfully, hippies usually understand property rights when it comes to drugs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eventually this started happen with other things, and the house turned into a dorm with everyone stashing their stuff under their own beds.

The funniest experiment in communal ownership of property was the time we tried communal weed. Everyone pitched in their equal share for the quap and just smoked it when they wanted to get high. We put David Copperfield's disappearance tricks to shame. Thankfully, hippies usually understand property rights when it comes to drugs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That is soooooooo surprising. I'm sure Borodog would have never guessed that outcome.

[hmkpoker]

BTW, if anyone could post or PM me information about some of your local, working co-ops, I'd be pretty interested in the matter. I have always assumed that they would have serious difficulty due to the risk aversion of most workers, but if they can actually compete with the traditional capitalist hierarchy then hey, that's freedom and equality.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if anyone could post or PM me information about some of your local, working co-ops, I'd be pretty interested in the matter. I have always assumed that they would have serious difficulty due to the risk aversion of most workers, but if they can actually compete with the traditional capitalist hierarchy then hey, that's freedom and equality.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best restaurant in the town (a college town) I grew up near is (or at least was the last time I was there) a co-op. It was formed when the original restaurant went out of business and the peopel that had been working there got together to buy the restaurant and reopen it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what reason does the market in general select against them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shake,

I'm not sure the market does select against them; it would be hard to say, since there is no free market to speak of.

As NT points out there's LOTS of barriers making it difficult for co-op style businesses/communities/etc. (not the least of which is the fact that government confers countless benefits upon wal-mart style corporations).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first of all, co-ops are at a disadvantage when it comes to collecting capital. There is so much wealth out there that people can invest in more companies than they could possibly physically work in. And most modern corporations already have many worker-owners (along with a bunch of government-granted advantages). But more importantly, most people would *prefer* to invest in a business, even one they work at, which allows them to *retain* ownership even after leaving (or vice-versa, to work at without retaining ownership).

[NT!]

Good points from everyone re: barriers to co-ops. In general it seems to me that the model is less suited to large-scale operations and that the preferences of both consumers and those posessing capital select against them in all but some specialized markets.

hmk, there is a very successful co-op market in Great Barrington, MA where I used to live. It is a bit more expensive than the chain stores nearby but it's also the only real outlet for high quality local, organic produce, and the price difference is not exorbitant. I think the reasons it succeeds are 1. broader appeal of organic foods in the region / more 'movement' support, 2. local government also provides some subsidies to local producers which keeps costs down, 3. it's a luxury housing market / second home type of area so people can afford it and 4. their food and other products are actually noticeably better than the Price Chopper and Big Y. I'm not a big organic food guy but I shopped there just because they had some of the best breads, meats and veggies you could ask for.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Nit,

My idea the the "common capitalist," Slugger, comes from common lexicon,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. Perhaps if you had said "the common lexicon among socialist intellectuals".

[ QUOTE ]
not economic definitions. Reading comprehension FTW. I don't disagree that owner-employees are in fact capitalist, Son, just that common-use would not tend to use the word in that fashion. So in my not so technical post, I used it in a sloppy manner, Ace, fully expecting non-nits and those interesting in actually discussing the idea to understand. Good to know good academic minds such as your own have little else to do than nit-pick the admitted poor use of a word with respect to technical standards.

Hugs and Kisses,

Sporto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the intellectual debate is not to concede the terminology to the opposition. Allowing people to change the definitions of common words allows all sorts of fallacious arguments to slip through.

Also, stop stealing my jokes. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
hmk, there is a very successful co-op market in Great Barrington, MA where I used to live. It is a bit more expensive than the chain stores nearby but it's also the only real outlet for high quality local, organic produce, and the price difference is not exorbitant. I think the reasons it succeeds are 1. broader appeal of organic foods in the region / more 'movement' support, 2. local government also provides some subsidies to local producers which keeps costs down, 3. it's a luxury housing market / second home type of area so people can afford it and 4. their food and other products are actually noticeably better than the Price Chopper and Big Y. I'm not a big organic food guy but I shopped there just because they had some of the best breads, meats and veggies you could ask for.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what kind of worries me about co-ops. If it's an organic foods store in a wealthy, liberal Massachusetts town, the co-op may have an advantage by appealing to a very niche market that buys from them specifically because they're co-ops (unlike the majority of Americans, who buy from large retailers because they're only interested in the goods). I have a buddy who works for a co-op in Philly that makes and produces birkenstock-like shoes. It's cool and all, but his consumer base is very largely composed of politically active liberals for whom buying shoes from their co-op is not just useful, but it's also a political statement.

Not that I have anything against co-ops, I'd just like to see one that can compete for the consumers that don't care about whether the business is a capitalist hierarchy or a co-op (if wal-mart was a co-op and provided the same low prices, people would shop there just the same)