Originally posted by scherzoI think that capitalism can be reformed. A worker owned business still operates within a market economy. If they were the norm, rather than the exception, then you would have what some people refer to as 'market socialism.' Whether this would be an end in itself, or a transitional phase to pure socialism remains to be seen. My hunch is that it should be treated as an end in itself.
Economic democracy to some would mean capitalism. It's where the word "neoliberalism" originated.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettActually one of the biggest (revenue: 11.5 billion euros) banks here in the Netherlands is a cooperative bank - with members rather than shareholders. There's little difference with an ordinary bank however, although they came through the credit crisis largely unscathed due to aiming more for long-term investments rather than short-term profits.
I think that capitalism can be reformed. A worker owned business still operates within a market economy. If they were the norm, rather than the exception, then you would have what some people refer to as 'market socialism.' Whether this would be an end in itself, or a transitional phase to pure socialism remains to be seen. My hunch is that it should be treated as an end in itself.
Originally posted by rwingettBut then reform would stop!
I think that capitalism can be reformed. A worker owned business still operates within a market economy. If they were the norm, rather than the exception, then you would have what some people refer to as 'market socialism.' Whether this would be an end in itself, or a transitional phase to pure socialism remains to be seen. My hunch is that it should be treated as an end in itself.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou wasted a lot of words saying not much at all.
Yeah, that's definitely true in your view of reality. But in the aforementioned reality investors will ignore brilliant plans if they are submitted by people with no experience, no relations and/or no starting capital. Of course, in situations where this is not the case and initial investment and required expertise is low, the situation you sketched is already in place and new businesses are started all the time.
So the workers want to take a short cut, they want to run the company even though they have no experience, as an investor I'd be doubtful to, but this is what wingett is advocating, there is a reason his dreams aren't reality...
...they don't work
Originally posted by WajomaEverything that works best is already in place?
You wasted a lot of words saying not much at all.
So the workers want to take a short cut, they want to run the company even though they have no experience, as an investor I'd be doubtful to, but this is what wingett is advocating, there is a reason his dreams aren't reality...
...they don't work
Originally posted by WajomaI'm sure that most people in the 17th century thought the 'divine right of kings' would never go out of style either.
You wasted a lot of words saying not much at all.
So the workers want to take a short cut, they want to run the company even though they have no experience, as an investor I'd be doubtful to, but this is what wingett is advocating, there is a reason his dreams aren't reality...
...they don't work
Originally posted by WajomaThe workers wouldn't have to run the company directly. They could elect a board to run the company, as long as the board is responsible to the workers and can be replaced by them. This is what the Equal Exchange company (in Massachusetts) does. That is one example of economic democracy in action. It can work. It does work. But the example needs to be replicated many times over.
You wasted a lot of words saying not much at all.
So the workers want to take a short cut, they want to run the company even though they have no experience, as an investor I'd be doubtful to, but this is what wingett is advocating, there is a reason his dreams aren't reality...
...they don't work