Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

Andrewn said:

How do you compare the experience in Mexico and Brazil? And does their experience explain their presidents' refusal to acknowledge Biden's electoral win?

Click to expand...

I can't speak to those two nations...they've had their share of organized crime problems which is their main focus.

The example I was referring to was the dichotomy between places like Cuba and Chile. Once had their economy destroyed by socialism, the other had their economy destroyed by free market systems.

"The government is going to take this sector over to make it fair" is a red flag to many Cubans...

"We just need to get government out of the way so the market can do its thing" is going to be a red flag to many Chileans and Central Americans.

Vanellus said:

So I think you're not against the principle of the workers being the owners rather you doubt it works in practice. The fat cats don't want to lose their supply of easy cream so it is in their interests that people think that way. The Jewish kibbutzim are a well known example of cooperatives and many still exist in that form I believe. They even exist in America: U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives – Work it. Own It. and of course in the UK there is the Cooperative society: Co-op for short and there are others e.g. Suma (co-operative) - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

A quick look at Suma shows profits in excess of 30 million and around 200 employees.

What happens when an employee doesn't go along with the program? Well, they get cut loose....just like any other employee....

Well since they're also owners they get cut loose with their 150k$+ share of the company ? Right?

If not what did they own?

Ana the Ist said:

A quick look at Suma shows profits in excess of 30 million and around 200 employees.

What happens when an employee doesn't go along with the program? Well, they get cut loose....just like any other employee....

Well since they're also owners they get cut loose with their 150k$+ share of the company ? Right?

If not what did they own?

Click to expand...

I think you've mistaken profit for equity.

Hans Blaster said:

I think you've mistaken profit for equity.

Click to expand...

Realistically the value of the company is worth more....

I didn't have any numbers for that though.

Ana the Ist said:

Realistically the value of the company is worth more....

I didn't have any numbers for that though.

Click to expand...

Let me put this way. If the owner-employee leaves the company, they aren't owners anymore, so why would they get income from it (or a cash payment)? (There maybe some sort of cash-out or pension associated with long term association. I don't know.)

Vanellus said:

I don't think you know what their policy for people leaving the company is do you?

Click to expand...

I read an article that says they're counciled then fired.

Hans Blaster said:

Let me put this way. If the owner-employee leaves the company, they aren't owners anymore, so why would they get income from it (or a cash payment)? (There maybe some sort of cash-out or pension associated with long term association. I don't know.)

Click to expand...

So they just strip you of ownership on your way out the door? Great deal....

Ana the Ist said:

So they just strip you of ownership on your way out the door? Great deal....

Click to expand...

I don't know. I've never heard of this one before today. I haven't even been to England.

I have been part of a couple "cooperatives" though.

When I was a student, all members of the student body were members of the cooperative bookstore. This didn't mean I could sell my share, but there was a potential dividend from net profits made by the store distributed some years.

I've also been in credit unions. Those are owned by the depositors. If I close my regular bank accounts, I am no longer an owner. If it were to be dissolved, presumably the net proceeds would be distributed based on the number of shares. (And that is based somehow on our deposits.) In the past the credit union has distributed a dividend based on business earnings.

Both are (likely) non-charitable non-profits. They pay taxes, but their goal is not to generate income for their owners, but rather to provide (books, banking) to their members.

Ana the Ist said:

Well since they're also owners they get cut loose with their 150k$+ share of the company ? Right?

If not what did they own?

Click to expand...

Remember, this isn’t a capitalistic model. Their “share” of the company isn’t something that can be bought or sold. It’s a legal entitlement to a percentage of the co-op’s profits, presumably issued regularly like a paycheck. When they leave, they stop getting those paychecks. They’re not losing equity like a capitalist stockholder would be. They’re just out.

Vanellus said:

Link?

Click to expand...

Does that really need a link? What exactly did you think they did with problematic employees?

gaara4158 said:

Remember, this isn’t a capitalistic model. Their “share” of the company isn’t something that can be bought or sold. It’s a legal entitlement to a percentage of the co-op’s profits, presumably issued regularly like a paycheck. When they leave, they stop getting those paychecks. They’re not losing equity like a capitalist stockholder would be. They’re just out.

Click to expand...

Well then I fail to see the advantage this model offers. I can collect a paycheck under capitalism....and I can actually own a piece of the company.

Ana the Ist said:

Well then I fail to see the advantage this model offers. I can collect a paycheck under capitalism....and I can actually own a piece of the company.

Click to expand...

You can own a piece of your employer if you can buy the stock (if it trades & you have cash), but if you're a regular employee at a privately held company you have no such chance. The example company discussed earlier sounds like the kind of company that wouldn't be publicly traded because it is too small.

Ana the Ist said:

Well then I fail to see the advantage this model offers. I can collect a paycheck under capitalism....and I can actually own a piece of the company.

Click to expand...

You get a bigger paycheck because your share isn’t being split with people who don’t work there. And you have a say in how the company is run. It’s the difference between tyranny and democracy.

gaara4158 said:

You get a bigger paycheck because your share isn’t being split with people who don’t work there. And you have a say in how the company is run. It’s the difference between tyranny and democracy.

Click to expand...

How to fix the gender pay gap? The firm that pays everyone the same

The most successful example of this and the most they make is a little more than 15$ an hour.

That doesn't sound great...it doesn't even sound good. I'd rather have a boss and make 25$ an hour.

Ana the Ist said:

How to fix the gender pay gap? The firm that pays everyone the same

The most successful example of this and the most they make is a little more than 15$ an hour.

That doesn't sound great...it doesn't even sound good. I'd rather have a boss and make 25$ an hour.

Click to expand...

It says plus bonuses and shares, so it’s actually much more than $15, but co-ops don’t necessarily have to pay everyone the same. Whatever the pay structure is, it’s determined democratically.
Ocean Spray is a worker cooperative, and their wages vary from $11/hr to $180k/yr.

Here's a wild idea, maybe SoCoMarxism, a series of economic reforms devised nearly 200 years ago to deal with the thousand year old calcified socio-economic class system of a completely different continent than ours...is exactly as antiquated as it sounds, and isn't suited for the digital world we currently live in.

Also, most of the egregious conditions that produced Marx's theories have been either addressed, or out-sourced to the developing world.

The Robber-Barrons of the 19th century opposed Marxist reforms. Whereas today, many of the staunchest Marxists work hand-in-glove with our digital Robber-Barron technocratic elites.

That ought to raise a red flag or two on exactly, Qui Bono.

Or we can spend another century demociding another 100 million or so people until the next 4th Turning. Maybe that'll give us the impetus to devise a slightly less irrelevant economic model.