Worker owned Corporations

[Umoja]

I was reading a paper for my english course about workers taking control of their own corporations and running them as a democracy. The writter of the article claimed that the lack of worker ownership is the principle reason our society doesn't work, it's not democratic in the workplace and as a result it weakens any democratic reforms we might try. He pointed to early American society frowning on 'wage slaves' and the like. It made me think, that industrialized capitalism seems to be the problem, not the actual market economy itself.

[STABD]

corect me if im wrong but isnt that what the anarchist movment is about, the workers taking control of there meens of production.

[Severian]

There are a number of "worker-owned" corporations in the U.S. and other countries today, including United Airlines. They don't run any different from other corporations in practice.

So it turns out the market does matter.

[Clarksist]

It made me think, that industrialized capitalism seems to be the problem, not the actual market economy itself.


You still have the hoarding and build up of capital, where the "old money" forces some kids to be born with nothing and others with silver spoons. You'll have everyone having to work under a profit, and if not, the company fails and the workers grow poor.


corect me if im wrong but isnt that what the anarchist movment is about, the workers taking control of there meens of production.


Anarchists & Communists wish to give the proletariat the means of production. But also abolish capital.

[Guest1]

Some forms of Anarchism do advocate a market economy with worker owned factories.

[Organic Revolution]

thats not anarchism, thats 'anarcho'-capitalism

[JKP]

Originally posted by organic [email protected] 7 2005, 05:48 PM
thats not anarchism, thats 'anarcho'-capitalism
Mutualism actually.

"anarcho" capitalism would have private ownership.

[STABD]

in what ways does anarchy difer from communism, both are classless and stateless right?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 06:47 PM
in what ways does anarchy difer from communism, both are classless and stateless right?
Yep. We just have different methods of achieving our goal.

[Umoja]

I was under the impression that I was thinking of Democratic Socialism.

Also, in a practical sense, most forms of anarchy whether they are left or right anarchy are pretty similar.

[MikeSchafer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:33 PM

You still have the hoarding and build up of capital, where the "old money" forces some kids to be born with nothing and others with silver spoons. You'll have everyone having to work under a profit, and if not, the company fails and the workers grow poor.

Unions or workers organizations controlling factories and corporations would prevent the massive wealth gap that you see in our current system. Workers would be the ones deciding salaries, so those at the top wouldn't receive 100 times more than the average employee.

[Decolonize The Left]

Unions or workers organizations controlling factories and corporations would prevent the massive wealth gap that you see in our current system. Workers would be the ones deciding salaries, so those at the top wouldn't receive 100 times more than the average employee.

This and the other comments are all steps away from classism and capitalist exploitation but the system will still stand. You cannot give the workers power piece by piece as eventually some form of corruption will occur, as capitalism inherently breeds corruption and greed. Therefore these worker-owned factories and corporations are all better than the previous situation but they will not survive indefinately. In other words, reform will work to an extent, but in the end revolution will need to occur for communism/anarchism to truly take form.

-- August

[workersunity]

I was talking to my friend about this stuff, he isnt a socialist but hates capitalism. He was saying that all we need is for only small businesses to exist and thus it make a better society, he was talking bout elimination of corporations on this basis, it wouldnt work how things are going but what the hell

[Decolonize The Left]

I was talking to my friend about this stuff, he isnt a socialist but hates capitalism. He was saying that all we need is for only small businesses to exist and thus it make a better society, he was talking bout elimination of corporations on this basis, it wouldnt work how things are going but what the hell

Corporations have many problems: they are treated as persons, decisions are distanced from the workers, etc... to name a few.

Small businesses are obviously a better solution in a smaller scale, they are the best solution for a capitalist society. But the system still remains, and therefore exploitation and greed will exist.

In an anarchist society people will work on the smaller scale simply because they can and it will help them and their community. The word 'corporation' will disappear with the removal of a monetary system, and therefore greed will be eliminated as well.

-- August

[Severian]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 7 2005, 06:09 PM
Some forms of Anarchism do advocate a market economy with worker owned factories.
Right. Which IMO will inevitably lead back to capitalism. With a market, there are always winners and losers.

And in order to compete and succeed in a market, any enterprise has to act pretty much like capitalist businesses do today. That's why capitalist businesses act the way they do - because the ones that act differently, can't compete in the market, and go out of business.

The "worker-owned" businesses that act most like ordinary capitalist businesses will be the most successful on the market, and grow; those who act most unlike them will shrink and eventually die.

We see this operating with present-day "employee-owned businesses"; Yugoslavia's economic system also involved different state-owned, "self-managed" enterprises competing in a market.

[Decolonize The Left]

Severian you are correct.

Any trace of capitalism will corrupt the system. This is another reason why reform cannot succeed in trasforming capitalism to socialism or communism.

-- August

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 9 2005, 07:27 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 9 2005, 07:27 AM)
Che y [email protected] 7 2005, 06:09 PM
Some forms of Anarchism do advocate a market economy with worker owned factories.
Right. Which IMO will inevitably lead back to capitalism. With a market, there are always winners and losers.

And in order to compete and succeed in a market, any enterprise has to act pretty much like capitalist businesses do today. That's why capitalist businesses act the way they do - because the ones that act differently, can't compete in the market, and go out of business.

The "worker-owned" businesses that act most like ordinary capitalist businesses will be the most successful on the market, and grow; those who act most unlike them will shrink and eventually die.

We see this operating with present-day "employee-owned businesses"; Yugoslavia's economic system also involved different state-owned, "self-managed" enterprises competing in a market. [/b]

Yes, of course it's right. What is lack for further transforming the "worker-owned" businesses into communist society? No developed communistic economic mechanism of production and distribution without money, wages, etc. inside "workers corporations" between workers or employees does not exist nor in paper or in practise till today. Marx in his works gave only an contour of this method, general direction, i.e. the account of the made work and distribution of work results according to average social labour time.

NovelGentry gave me a link to the work from 1930 y. but I have not read it yet because was occupied

www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/