Employee-owned corporations?

[Ol' Dirty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee-owned_corporation

In the context of capitalism, I like this far more than the traditional style of corporation. what do y'all think of it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about this?

Pension Fund "Socialism" (http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_article.php?aid=321)

[BIG BROTHER]

why hasn't anyone answered this, it seems pretty interesting to me. Perhaps controversial too.

I believe that employee owned corporations could be a double edged sword. On one side it could show workers that they are capable of functioning without the bourgeoisie parasite, and all that the corporation earns goes to them(right?)

On the other hand since it still functions under capitalism is still subject to all the laws and contradictions of the system(based on profit not necessity of the people, lack of funds to function even though its actually physically possible to continue producing, etc) Also I think this could be used by reformist as a way to appease the masses.

[JazzRemington]

It really doesn't matter much who owns the means of production (whether its a rich robber-baron or a poor factory worker), as within capitalism all firms seek to maximize surplus-value/profit. The same basic process is the same, only different people in the position of ownership/control.

[Decolonize The Left]

It really doesn't matter much who owns the means of production (whether its a rich robber-baron or a poor factory worker), as within capitalism all firms seek to maximize surplus-value/profit. The same basic process is the same, only different people in the position of ownership/control.

Bingo. While I may prefer to see workers in control of the corporation, they will inevitably be forced to exploit someone else in order to maximize profits. Hence I don't see why this is anything other than another version of the same chains...

- August

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Bingo. While I may prefer to see workers in control of the corporation, they will inevitably be forced to exploit someone else in order to maximize profits. Hence I don't see why this is anything other than another version of the same chains...

- August

Well it matters to the factory workers. Working at a cooperative is certainly a lot better than working at a regular company. You have at least, a semblance of dignity.

[cyu]

as within capitalism all firms seek to maximize surplus-value/profit

It depends on your definition of surplus value and profit.

Surplus value, to me, is the difference between how much the product / service sells for, and how much the employees get paid. Under capitalism, this difference (minus costs) goes to the boss. If there were no boss, all of the money goes to the employees, so there is no surplus value.

Profit, I believe, is traditionally defined as a company's revenue, minus the cost of labor, raw materials, maintenance, equipment, etc. This money also goes to the boss / shareholders. If there were no boss / shareholders, then this extra money either goes to the employees or the employees decide how to spend it on raw materials, maintenance, equipment, etc... so there would be no profit.

Of course, you could redefine "profit" as the amount of money the employees get paid - although this is not the traditional definition, since the employees now own the company, one can make the argument that this is now a legitimate definition. Personally, I don't see a big problem with employees trying to increase how much money they earn as long as they are legitimately trying to serve society better.

The main problem with capitalism is that wealth accumulates in huge amounts under the control of a few. This results in concentration of political power and also results in allocation of resources to serve the tiny minority. As long as wealth is relatively equal, even if not exactly equal, I don't see it as a big problem.

You might argue that some employee-controlled industries will still be able to accumulate vast amounts of financial power, and thereby oppress other members of society. The anarchist answer to that is simply that their "right" to that financial power is subservient to "freedom for everyone" - if that industry is using its power to abuse the public or limit others' freedoms, then anarchists will simply take that financial power away from them - for example, the means of production controlled by that company could be taken over by more and more people, until the economic power of that industry becomes divided among a large percentage of the population.