The Structure of The Corporation
Rather than give a lecture, I'd like to delve into the title of this thread by asking a few questions. One quick thing, though: I'm talking about large-cap corporations.
(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public?
(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation?
(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?
(4) Who decides what to do with the profits?
(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?
(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products)
[There is actually an answer to this question]
(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?
Truly interested in answers.
(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public?
(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation?
(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?
(4) Who decides what to do with the profits?
(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?
(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products)
[There is actually an answer to this question]
(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?
Truly interested in answers.
Comments (114)
"Would you want to work in one of these institutions?"
It is divided between the richest businessmen and the State. They both own the private and public corporations.
Quoting Xtrix
The one which makes all the rules and decisions in the shadows. Most of the workers do not know about him or her.
Quoting Xtrix
I guess three actors: market, State and the few richest businessmen of that market.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, the same person who is in the “shadows” controlling everything and we not know anything about.
Quoting Xtrix
I would say (e) and (h).
Quoting Xtrix
No, I think it is not run democratically.
Quoting Xtrix
It depends. If I work normally in an ordinary position with a good income I would say yes. But I cannot see myself in positions with a lot of power because it seems to be so corrupt.
The consumer. Otherwise, in no time at all, you have a bankruptcy, and without a golden parachute, a frantic CEO fleeing to hidden assets in Costa Rica.
Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. Otherwise, you're assuming a shot in the dark will kill your hired assassin. Bold. But there's been bolder.
You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste.
The biggest threat are un-governed people with great power. Who governs the government? If we are capable of governing the government, then shouldn't we be able to also govern ourselves?
The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.
Quoting Outlander
To the above question, there is a clear answer — when dealing with fortune 500 companies. The answer is the board of directors.
Quoting Outlander
Why watch it when you can read it?
Regardless— no, corporations are not inherently “bad”, nor did I say this. Any more than a hammer is inherently bad.
This has nothing to do with “governed human nature.”
I don’t think we have to look in the shadows, really. It’s right there in front of us. No sinister plot, no conspiracy. Not as exciting perhaps, but we’re interested in how things really work, yes?
Quoting javi2541997
You’re partially right!
Quoting Xtrix
A corporation is a legal person. Because slavery is illegal, a corporation is not owned. It owns itself.
Quoting Xtrix
I would argue the board of directors. So the chairman of the board, or even the CEO.
Quoting Xtrix
The board of directors.
Quoting Xtrix
The board of directors.
Quoting Xtrix
The answer is (e), stock buybacks. At least in the last few years. That's worth dwelling on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-5UVxoThfQ
Stock buybacks shouldn't be allowed anyway. It all comes down to the silly Freidman Doctrine -- shareholder primacy. I'm glad that's beginning to end.
Shareholders are not the owners of the company, and the company does not need to prioritize them. They should be dealt with after the employees, the infrastructure of the company, and the community at large has also been taken care of. What's left can go to dividends if the board of directors so desire -- as was the case for decades (40s, 50s, 60s, 70s).
What happened was the ideology changed to shareholder primacy, thanks in part to guys like Milty, and the boards of directors started getting voted in/pressured to make moves to encourage directing more of the profits to the shareholders in the form of dividends and maximizing share price (through stock buybacks), at the expense of other profit investment -- which is why we've seen worker wages stagnate and companies investing less in R&D, factories and equipment. They did this in part by linking CEO pay with quarterly stock price -- paying a large portion of their salaries with company stocks, or with bonuses that are contingent on share price increases per quarter.
Quoting Xtrix
Not how they're run now. They can be run democratically, and a good model of that is the cooperative model, but that's not how major corporations are run today. In terms of corporate governance, the form of government could best be described as totalitarian or tyranny. Top-down structure, where orders are passed down, and at the bottom a majority of wage slaves who rent themselves (their time, energy, labor -- i.e., the better part of their adult life) in order to live.
These corporations are the major employers in the world, and they have positioned themselves to essentially own the state. Of the corporate world, the most powerful by far has become the financial sector -- banks, investment firms, asset managers, etc. In other words: Wall Street.
So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok.
See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid.
What is your alternative? Random people producing random things with no accountability whatsoever? We had that. Then we got sick of it, mostly from all the deaths with no recompense whatsoever, and so now there's an accountable structure. Anything with the previous quality no matter how small is in fact a corporation of some kind. I'm assuming you mean the most successful in power (which is you by the way, just again more successful) are bad. Yes, people without limits, rules, regulations and restrictions are bad. That's hardly a discussion at this point.
Eh, I thought it was some pretty good Occupy agitprop and bid for co-ops. A little heavy handed with the totalitarianism and tyranny, but, it is agitprop, I guess.
The question was: who decides what to produce, how to produce it, and what to do with the profits. That's not the business of "consumers," because that's absurd. The answer is: the board of directors decides these matters. These people, within the corporation, makes these decisions based on all kinds of factors: the markets, supply and demand, fiscal and monetary policies the government is enacting, and so on. But the internal decisions are in their hands alone. The consumer has zero input in this.
Quoting Outlander
This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings were hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely.
This question has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing. It has to do with corporate governance and its structure.
Quoting Outlander
Alternative to what?
So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from?
Quoting Xtrix
Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly.
Quoting Xtrix
Nothing, nothing at all. This entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point.
It's not communist propaganda, and it's not a bid for co-ops. It's simply the factual structure of the corporation and the simple fact of where profits go. Not a word about Occupy. You're just making that up.
I think co-ops serve as a good alternative model. Whether they should be pushed, or whether we should return to a more Keynesian era of regimented capitalism -- the era of managerialism -- is another question. I'm inclined to think the latter is a more viable option temporarily, while also encouraging alternative forms of corporate governance (like co-ops or 20% of board seats going to workers, or strong labor unions).
Occupy Wall Street was a broad-based anti-capitalist movement that became popular in 2011. Slavoj Zizek was sort of involved with it, but it wasn't communist by any stretch of the imagination.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I think co-ops are a good idea, too. You can support co-ops if you like.
I never once said anyone should or would produce something without a demand. That's not the point at all. The question was: who makes the decision about what to produce, how to produce, how much to produce, where to produce (the US? Mexico? China?), and how to allocate the profits of this production?
The answer to this question just simply isn't "the consumer," or "the market." That's ridiculous as soon as you look at how corporations are run. The answer, rather, is simple and straightforward: the board of directors.
Quoting Outlander
So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is?
Fine -- I've wasted my life on anarchist stuff. Happy? Now let's get back to the real world, and the real questions about corporate structure, and the simple fact that the board of directors makes the decisions about where to allocate profits and how the company should be run (along with choosing the CEO, etc).
Quoting Outlander
And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself.
I kind of agree with you that it's unlikely for co-ops to catch on. You might not be talking about anarchism, but, I am so inclined to wonder, when we're going to go through the whole business of reorganizing the entire corporate structure, why not just go all the way to workers' self-management?
I'm aware of what Occupy Wall Street was. I was there.
Quoting thewonder
I never said it was communist, so I don't understand this comment.
As for Zizek -- he's a complete imbecile, in my view, and I have no idea why you'd invoke him in this discussion. But carry on as you will.
That's what a co-op is, in part. But most importantly is this: they're their own board of directors. They hire and fire CEOs and managers, set pay grades and ratios, decide whether to expand, decide whether they want to bring in private investment and issue stocks, etc. etc. Run very much like companies now -- only difference is that it's worker-run, and run democratically. Shouldn't be a shocking or difficult notion -- except for the propaganda of the United States.
Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does.
Quoting Xtrix
Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this.
Lack of faith in what?
Quoting Outlander
There's nothing to decide. There was a simple question with a simple answer. The answer was: the board of directors. Your answer, "the consumers," was simply wrong. Sorry that this upset you -- but grow up and get thicker skin. I'm not here to baby people.
2+2 = ?
Your answer: 3.
Real answer: 4.
"Well, I guess we'll just have to leave it to the readers to decide."
While the term, "agitprop", did originate in the former Soviet Union, it does generally denote any sort of political art designed to inspire some sort of action or another.
Quoting Xtrix
That does sound like workers' self-management, but I think that it may be a somewhat hopeful depiction of co-ops in general. I'm all for them and all, but I don't think that workers determine their pay grades and ratios all that often, for instance. I could be wrong, though. I don't know too much about them.
Who does, then? If the workers are their board of directors, they can decide these things -- just as a board of directors in a capitalist corporation decides how much to compensate a CEO.
I guess that they actually do. Crazy!
Especially in Sweden there is a thing they cherish and it's "företagsdemokrati" implemented also in the workforce rather than just taking note of stakeholders as Economic Democracy is mainly about (even if the workforce is one stakeholder).
But there's a problem.
Democracy works basically if everybody also shares the responsibility of the actions. If voters choose bad politicians, they in the end will feel it. That is extremely hard to do in a workplace. Hierarchic organizations have managers and leaders and they usually bare the brunt of the decision making as...they are the managers and leaders. If a Cooperative grows to be large enough, the only rational decision is to have an elected body that supervises the actions of the management. Everybody simply cannot decide with a vote on every issue! Hence in real life, not the ideological fairy tale castle where these structures of companies are larger than life issues, big Cooperatives function quite as big Corporations. Many wouldn't notice the difference in ordinary life between the two.
Hence the Swedish företagsdemokrati model can easily fall into the trap of being just this enormous grandstanding scheme where business is done as usual, but in order to make the appearance that everybody is making the decisions and everybody has his or her equal input, a lot of time is spent on workforce meetings. Sometimes it good, especially if any kind of feedback from the workforce doesn't exist earlier. Listening to stakeholders might be a good idea. Yet in some technical question it's simply hypocrisy to assume that the young intern and the 30-year professional have equal say.
Simply put it, some organizations are hierarchical because of practicality, not because of ideology. There can be this class issue in some societies which decrease the performance of the organization as leaders aren't team leaders but more like higher caste masters who have servants. Yet some have top-down structures simply exist to coordinate the actions of everybody.
Democracy isn't an answer to everything, it works extremely well in some areas, not on others. Hence one should be careful just how to implement it. Practical thinking is far better than just ideological perseverance.
What kind of self-immunised, circular twaddle is this? "Leaders lead because they're leaders". Your point?
Whatever the organisation, the lowest paid bear the cost of decisions made because they're the ones with the least safety net if things go wrong.
The point about the way corporations are structured is that it's workers and communities which experience the cost of bad decisions, yet they have little to no say in those decisions.
There are simply practical reasons why we have formed our organizations to have leaders.
If you then say, "Nope, from now on the leaders and managers are just "team members" along with everybody else and everybody together has to make the decisions", what do you think will happen? So... you vote? Or do you have to have a consensus? On what matters? Just for starters, when is someone in the workforce capable doing a decision on his or on her own?
Quoting Isaac
There are far more lousy or mediocre enterprises than those that go bust. And likely in any organization the lowest paid is the young trainee or intern. Perhaps he or she isn't at the age of 20 or less isn't in the same position in the job market as an over 50 year old with only specific and narrow job qualification and experience.
Are you implying that those are difficult to answer? That the need to make a few decisions first is sufficient to prohibit worker-ownership or democratic governance? I should image most large corporations are quite accustomed to making a few tricky decisions.
Quoting ssu
I have no idea how this is related to what I said.
Actually, yes. If everything would have to be decided that way.
Quoting Isaac
And I think many organizations, not just corporations, are indeed accustomed to make a lot of tricky decisions... with committees, specific teams or groups, leaders or (ghasp!) managers making those decisions.
Quoting Isaac
Let's look at what you said then:
Quoting Isaac
And what I replied is that usually the lowest paid in any organization is a trainee, an intern, the most junior employee. Or do you refute that?
And that these have the least safety net, well, they likely are the youngest people in the workforce and hence have their work career well in front of them. Actually those who really need a safety net are people who are far less to end up with a new job. Those are people with narrow work experience and close to retirement. Let's say you have been a coal miner for the last 40 years and five years from retirement, think how easy it is to pick a new job when the coal mine is shut down (along with many others like you out of work). Compared your situation to a person who just graduated from school and for some reason worked at the coal mine for some months? Likely his or her salary was lower than yours.
Do you have any evidence of this difficulty, or are you just guessing?
Quoting ssu
Again, do you have any evidence, or are you just guessing? In the UK, 50 year olds have, on average, 10 times the savings of a 20 yr old; they're three times more likely to own their own house; and since both get the same unemployment benefit, the 50 yr old is significantly better off. And 16-24 year olds are more likely to be unemployed than any other age group. https://www.statista.com/statistics/974421/unemployment-rate-uk-by-age/
One of the advantages of actually looking up the data rather than just guessing is that you don't end up talking shite.
Did you even read what I said? Basically it's about making every decision collectively...or having the ordinary system where somebody in the organization decides by him or herself certain questions.
I am guessing you didn't even read it carefully what I wrote.
Quoting Isaac
A lot.
Yet just really first think what you just said above. Talk about not understanding the reality behind the statistics.
So...OMG! Somebody that has been working for 20+ years or so has more savings than someone who has just left or is even still staying at the parents home? I really don't have to guess that: it's OBVIOUS that this is the case in ANY country. That people that have a job will have more savings after decades of work? And that's your counterargument???
(And likely no, they don't get the same unemployment benefit as those typically have some link to the salary paid. At least here it's not so.)
Of course you utterly fail to recognize that somebody who is 20 years old has his whole work career in front of him. Not so with someone that will retire in few years. Statistics show quite well that it's the oldest segment of the workforce who faces PERMANENTLY losing their jobs doesn't reach your mind. And when you need to cut back the workforce, which would you as an employer start if two persons are qualified: the one who has a lower salary and far more work years ahead of him or the one that has a higher wage and will have to be replaced sooner? You really don't have to guess which they will choose.
In 90's economic depression Finland endured the hardest hit industry was the construction business. By statistics 50 000 lost permanently their jobs and this from a population of 5 million. And yes, they were usually the oldest in the workforce. After years of not hiring anybody, the new jobs went to a new generation.
Yet let's have those statistics, because you assume I'm just guessing. Simply to put it, age discrimination is quite obvious, an issue I'm really not just guessing:
So why is this?
Then if you like unemployment statistics, lets look at those who are permanently or long-termed unemployed, those that have basically dropped out of the workforce, and how age correlates with them.
Stats from my country, Finland:
Then from the UK:
And the US (from this year):
I think that's enough of stats, but I could go on and on.
Now when we take into account that many Americans don't have savings and the country doesn't have a welfare safety net, then hope you understand who is in more peril when a economic slump comes around: the 20 year old or the 50 year old worker that get laid off. But perhaps it's too difficult.
Quoting Isaac
Even better is to understand what you are talking about.
Seriously.
Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong?
I wasn't asking what it was 'about' I was asking whether you had any evidence that it was difficult.
Quoting ssu
I'm talking about safety nets, what does having their career ahead of then have to do with safety nets?
Quoting ssu
Again, what does permanence have to do with safety nets? The young suffer higher levels of unemployment that the old. Whether the smaller number of unemployed old are likely to remain that way is irrelevant to a discussion about which group bears the brunt of bankrupt businesses.
Quoting ssu
Again, the burden of unemployment is bourne mostly by the young. You speculating about the motives of employers doesn't change that. My comment was about the safety net different age groups have. Even if older people were more likely to be made redundant it doesn't change the fact that they have a more substantial safety net.
So? Again, what has this got to do with the burden of unemployment (still bourne mostly by the young even in America https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm), and what has it got to do with the safety net these age groups have?
The duration of unemployment has nothing to do with the financial cushioning to withstand it. It's good that these people are unemployed. With the young still bearing the majority of the unemployment in general and not having the savings to support themselves, more of the older generation should be taking long term unemployment and giving their jobs to the young.
Quoting ssu
I've just demonstrated that. It's the 20 year old. On average, they'll have one tenth of the savings and are more likely to be unemployed at any given time. I appreciate the efforts with evidence and all, but it's still the 20 year old. Less money, less housing security, more likely to be unemployed. The fact that, if a 50 year old is laid off they'll be more likely to suffer extended single periods of unemployment doesn't alter the overall picture.
No, a democracy is an inefficient form of operations management. It turns out most peoples ideas are bad and its best to ignore them.
These are legal and pragmatic questions and most responses are variable depending upon the particular corporation. If you're really interested, you can read up on C corps, S corps, for profit, not for profit, LLCs, mutual companies, and I'm sure there are more. Some are public and some are closely held. There are also municipalities and professional corporations. I'm just thinking off the top of my head. It just depends upon what is needed and how people might want to set them up. You have other sorts of organizations that aren't incorporated, like school boards and the like, but that are independent entities.
The reasons to incorporate might include raising capital, limiting liability, creating longevity, etc.
All of your questions would have different answers depending upon the specific company you're asking about. Sole proprietorships might incorporate at some point, yet there might be no noticeable difference to the employee.
There is great flexibility in how you can set them up.
There are some considerations to ponder here, namely that you are bound to only have a few people who truly understand the democratic process, but I think a potential solution to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of democratic enterprises could be the creation of complex democratic system.
The consensus-based decision making model, for instance, is something that a lot of people within the libertarian Left try out, which occasionally is lauded for the maximal stake that it offers its participants, but does quite often fail, as, anytime a decision needs to be come to, a meeting needs to be held for long enough for a consensus to be met. Certain Anarchists will tell you all sorts of things about it, even admonishing democracy altogether, an entirely nebulous enterprise, in my opinion, but that is more or less the inherent flaw.
It does work well, however, in small groups that don't have to make a lot of decisions. If you don't require an absolute consensus, if you somehow adapt to consistent minority opinions, as is part and parcel to the project, you can avoid the problem of that one or two people may repeatedly effectively veto any and/or all progress in this or that regard. Though I don't have any real experience within said organizations, I think that this is both fairly common and effective within small-scale mutual aid organizations.
In larger Anarchist organizations, attempts to institute a kind of pure consensus-based decision making model do quite often result in that, well, nothing gets decided upon whatsoever.
Once an organization grows to a certain size, there does seem to be a need to elect delegates, of which, one-member, one vote, seems to be the tried and true method. What doesn't necessarily have to be done is to consider the delegates as having been granted some sort of arbitrary authority over their particular organizational dominion. In the Democratic Socialists of America, for instance, of which, I would give the critique that there was a generalized disinterest in actually reading the by-laws, something that could raised as a point of contention to what I am offering in general, you would elect a chair and co-chair of each committee, the committees would have meetings and decide upon what to do, usually, after an hour or so long conversation, via a standard vote, and the chair or co-chair would go before everyone at the general meeting, wherein there would be a set of discussions and then everyone present at the general meeting would then again vote, which I assume is according to its by-laws, but, as I didn't read them either, I don't really know. They have kind of an elaborate process of adapting so that the organization can live up to its name, but only really the people who have been there forever know anything whatsoever about it.
There is a lot that you could say either for or against the DSA, but I would generally contend that it is an overall pretty good organization.
Anyways, what I'm suggesting is that, in so far that a larger Anarchist organization, or just simply anyone else who is interested in participatory could do, in so far that they would like to adopt the consensus-based decision making model, is to create a dynamic democratic system wherein it could be utilized in small groups, such as committees, as well as for, perhaps necessitating certain caveats, certain key decisions, an example of which, to use the DSA as an example, could be something like both the decision to have endorsed Bernie Sanders and how to do so, as some people wanted to directly participate within the campaign undertaken by the Democratic Party and some people wanted to undertake a campaign solely within the DSA, as such a decision effects the overall direction of the entire movement. For practical considerations, however, such as electing a treasurer after someone leaves the organization, the organization could fall back upon the one member, one vote method.
I should, perhaps, point out that, for all of the extensive knowledge, feuds, partial alliances, revelry, and disdain that I have for the Anarchist fringe, I do have a fairly limited experience within actual Anarchist organizations, and, so, this is all really fairly speculative, as it's mostly just based upon what I've read online here and there from various parties for various reasons.
I guess that what I'm suggesting is that a dynamic and adaptive synthesis of various forms of participatory democracy could be applied so as to both maximize a individual member's stake within an organization and ensure a certain degree of effectiveness and efficiency. The key problem with this, which I have already pointed to with the DSA's by-laws, is that individual members may be unlikely to understand how a complex democratic process works. This, however, I think has more to do with interest and engagement than anything else. The DSA, for instance, became relatively popular due to the coordinated campaign in favor of the election of Bernie Sanders, but, despite a significant increase in membership, will probably return to the relative obscurity that it previously had. The reason for this, I think, though a paradoxical caveat to my being admitted to the organization as an anarcho-pacifist, is due to that it is a "big tent" organization. Anyone who is a socialist can be a member. I am an anarcho-pacifist who defines anarchism as "libertarian socialism" and, so, do qualify. You can also be a member of the DSA as a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist, at least, in so far that you agree to that it is a democratic organization whose socialist vision is also democratic, which kind of results in an endless standoff between the recent Libertarian Socialist Caucus and the more authoritarian marxists in the organization. People within the far-Left develop all sorts of ideas and notions for all sorts of reasons, and, so, I kind of understand their desire to effectively convert said people to some other variant of marxism, but, were I to create a political organization or movement, I would probably make the libertarian aspect of my aforementioned "libertarian socialism" requisite. Perhaps, that's a certain kind of personal preference, though.
Anyways, all of this is to say nothing of the structure of something like a corporation, however. Personally, I am emphatically in favor of prefigurative politics. I don't think that people who are in favor of participatory democracy can ever hope to establish it without practicing it within their own organizations. Libcom, whom you may not consider relevant outside of the libertarian Left, but are actually some of its foremost theorists, aside from, perhaps, the waning trend of Communization, are fairly pessimistic of this general line of reasoning, even to the point of being ostensibly opposed to it. You see this in their critique of parecon. They generally think something along the lines of that only the establishment of libertarian communism, i.e. an effective revolution, insurrection, or near magical peaceful establishment of an Anarchist commune, can produce communist society, all of which is to emphasize that things like participatory economics, participatory democracy, cooperatives, or even mutual aid organizations can not cope with conditions under the current set of wealth and power relations that exist now, which they, in good faith, would just be willing to call "capitalism", which is not wholly untrue, the aforementioned Mondragon Corporation being an example of theirs, but I think their line of reasoning is all-too pessimistic, if not indicative of a certain sectarian militant zealotry. If you go into prefigurative politics without any illusions of actually reifying communist society, as per the general idea, I don't think that such harsh critique is really necessary to prevent anyone from becoming delusional.
Alas, however, I have been boring everyone endlessly and still am not quite on topic.
Similarly to organizations of the libertarian Left itself, should cooperatives adopt a dynamic and adaptative democratic process, perhaps undergoing a fairly gradual transition to some form of economic democracy, then, I do think that, over time, the seeming need for a hierarchical structure, will more or less disappear. A small shop that is run as a cooperative starting out, I do think, just can immediately be established as a kind of pure cooperative and test and try and adapt to what it needs to as such. I do imagine that something like a book store, though ultimately requiring some sort of administrative decisions, can just be run as a cooperative from the immediate outset.
Let's say that Jeff Bezos becomes taken by the cooperative movement, deciding that it is the way of the future, and wants to transform Amazon into a cooperative. I would contend that, even Amazon, though it would probably look a lot different, can be run as a pure cooperative. Perhaps, that is a point of contention that we can discuss, however? What would seem to be unwise is to overhaul such a large company as such overnight. Bezos could, instead, phase in the cooperative elements over time, allowing for the chance to adapt and develop a dynamic democratic process without risking the wholesale bankruptcy of the corporation.
There seems to me, within any given democratic process, to be kind of a Golden Mean between dynamic adaptability and over-complexity. If the democratic process of any social organization whatsoever is complex to a point of requiring a degree in Sociology, specializing in social organization, to understand, then, it will necessarily be too arcane to be effective. You see this within our Liberal democracy with Law. An organization should be able to adapt its process when situations demand that it does, however.
Another short note in defense of my having been in the DSA, for anyone who is curious:
Anarcho-Pacifism is about as popular as anarcho-nihilism was a few years ago, which is to say that there are about seven of us in the world. Needless to say, regardless as to what political organization I join, in part, though only in part, as I kind of agree with Jacques Camatte and Simone Weil, though not completely, as my speculative foray into organizational structures ought to illicit, because of that I just don't currently have any political allies, I am somewhat necessarily engaged in entryism. What the effective political praxis of democratic socialism and anarcho-pacifism turn out to be, however, is effectively the same thing, which is a gradualist transition to participatory democracy with only a slight emphasis upon reform. The real difference between democratic socialism and anarcho-pacifism is in the choice of allies. They align themselves with a broad Left, whereas I would do so with a broad anti-authoritarian movement. I'm no longer in the DSA or even really the anarchist movement anymore, though, and, so, this is all kind of a lot of armchair political philosophy.
If workers choose bad managers, they can fire them. I don't see why you consider that "extremely hard."
Quoting ssu
Yes, but this is just your unfamiliarity with cooperatives I think. It's not that "everybody decides with a vote on every issue," that would be, as you rightly point out, absurd.
Not only do big cooperatives function as big corporations -- they often ARE big corporations. I'm not seeing the difficulty...
Quoting ssu
They shouldn't, any more than it's absurd to suggest that your average voter could be President, or mayor, or even councilman. Yet we all still vote nonetheless. The danger, it's true, is in the ignorance and irrationality of the majority of people. But that's always been a risk in democracy.
Quoting ssu
There's nothing inherently wrong with top-down structures, with giving people compensation for work, with making a profit, or with structures of power, control, and authority -- provided it's legitimate. The current organization of most corporations is illegitimate, in my view. A cooperative is a better model than a capitalist one. The former is democratic, the latter is explicitly un-democratic (despite their being some very nice CEOs and very good companies to work for). The capitalist model is illegitimate and thus immoral -- just as slavery was illegitimate and immoral, despite their being benevolent slaveowners.
An essential feature of cooperatives is that the workers run the enterprise democratically. They're their own board of directors. Rather than the board of directors being voted in by investors, they're voted in by everyone who works in the company. The system we have now, predominantly, is this: one share, one vote; 1,000,000 shares, 1,000,000 votes, etc. This is rigged in favor of those with enough wealth to buy more shares and more votes. Thus, they control the board of directors, who both can hire and fire CEOs, distribute profits, and decide what to produce and where -- by law.
That's the problem, at bottom: it's undemocratic. The capitalist model of corporate governance doesn't even pretend to be democratic. Yet there's no good reason why it should exist, any more than there's reason why a plutocracy or oligarchy or monarchy should exist -- I think we're moved past that as a people. If we haven't, then we should stop professing our love for freedom, liberty, democracy, and autonomy. True, throughout history the beneficiaries (the winners) of any system will vehemently resist changes, and will employ intellectuals and all other resources at their disposal to control public opinion, but that doesn't mean we have to be stuck in it. If we can't question it, it's simply another kind of religion.
Quoting ssu
Which is why this has been tried and has succeeded in many cases. Examples are all over. I mentioned Mondragon because it's one of the biggest, but there are others as well. I like to include Ocean Spray, because they're close to where I live. Very successful, very well known brand. Run as a co-op.
When you look into the structures of these companies, you find many interesting facts. There's a trial and error that goes on, and mistakes which are made and learned from, but the basic idea is correct. Remember that forming the United States wasn't an easy and smooth endeavor either, but the underlying justification survived. Likewise the transition from a slave system -- very difficult, still ramifications to this day.
You speak as though these were pie-in-the-sky ideas. You're aware that they already exist, and that they're often successful?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ
(Disclosure: I really dislike Michael Moore's tone and air of self-righteousness, but concentrate more on the actual people he's talking to -- also, the facts mentioned check out. This is only one example.)
Quoting ssu
Yes but this isn't what anyone is advocating. This is a straw man.
It's not about taking a collective vote if I decide to use the bathroom or exercise discretion in my role. It's not about getting rid of division of labor. It's not about abolishing managers, or coordinators, or departments, or CEOs/presidents, or paying everyone the same amount of money, or anything like that.
It's about giving everyone a vote for leadership positions and having workers elect the board of directors rather than investors. There would also be many worker council meetings (like staff meetings) where everyone voices their opinions, etc. Michael Albert has gone into details about what this may entail, some problems that may arise, how to deal with them, etc. He calls this participatory economics, and it's worth taking a look at. I don't agree with every part of it, but it gives an idea of the micro-level activity of a democratic workplace.
Political philosophy.
Mondragon Corporation would disagree with you.
Sorry to hear you prefer dictatoriship to democracy within the workplace. False consciousness knows no bounds.
What I am curious of, though, as I have a certain degree of self-interest in clarifying my general praxis in the vain hopes of finding like-minded allies who lurk The Philosophy Forum, as, even Peace News and I have theoretical differences, though I do consider for them to be fairly amicable, I do understand you ignoring my lengthy post about all of this, is as to what you think of the idea that the cooperative movement can be put to the effect of establishing anarchist society.
On some level, there is an inherent subterfuge to such a venture, as we can only really seek to co-opt the movement in our favor. I, however, do genuinely endorse free association, and, so, would prefer a strategic alliance with and not a struggle for control over the cooperative movement. To tell you the full truth, only some anarchists really care enough about free association to also agree to do so.
You may think this somewhat irrelevant, but, what I am going to flat out tell you is that who supports co-ops are anarchists and anarchist sympathizers, and, so, the only people who you are going to find who have any interest in such ideas are, well, us.
Thoughts?
To sort of emphasize this point, the Basque region of Spain was a stronghold for the Republican movement during the Spanish Civil War.
There are people like, let's say, Astra Taylor, who were involved with Occupy whom you could find so as to put such a project into effect, but most of them do have some sort of vague anarchist sympathies and just simply kind of are, among the better of us, which is to say the people who don't feel a need to do things like get into shouting matches at protests, our allies among left-wing Liberals.
Perhaps, I do assume too much, but is seems kind of like you're trying to avoid the choir that this preaches to.
I actually looked it up. It turns out they wouldn't. They are worker-owned but not managed. They have a very pleasant company culture even though there is a built in 2 tier system between workers and worker-owners. Unfortunately, my preferences don't dictate reality any better than yours do. In order to survive a capitalist global market the option of managed by worker democracy fails viability at the necessary scale at which production is most profitable.
Sorry, you are quick to judge and confuse other's cognitive fault for your own ignorance.
True, but as I said: "I'm talking about large-cap corporations." Mostly fortune 500 companies (Wal Mart, Amazon, Microsoft, Exxon, Boeing, 3M, Pfizer, GM, etc), and generally publicly traded. I'm familiar with the rest.
The questions were in part to see where people were in terms of knowing about the internal workings of a corporation.
Quoting Hanover
Very true. I hope I've clarified better which specific ones I'm talking about.
Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions.
Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work.
I'm sure many others agree, in theory, with all of this as well. Fine. I'm glad. But this is less about abstraction than about concrete reality: there are such co-ops out there, and they should be looked to as an alternative form of corporate governance.
Many of those managers come from the workers, as I'm sure the Wikipedia article will tell you. But that's completely irrelevant. The workers run the company, democratically. No one is claiming, as I've said repeatedly, that every decision is made by majority vote. Like our politcal system in the United States, when we vote for our senators and congressman and President, no one argues that because we don't then get to vote on every decision from that point on it's somehow not democratic.
The majority of its workers voted the following rule, for example: The highest paid cannot get more than 8/9 times what the least paid person gets. I think that's a good rule. Decided democratically. Remember, too, that Mondragon is basically a holding company of many co-ops. So it differs depending on where you look. But it's run democratically.
Sure, if we construct a ridiculous straw man by defining corporate democracy as "workers vote on everything," then of course it's inefficient -- ridiculous, in fact, at least in large companies. But since this is just a fantasy and a straw man, it's not worth taking seriously. Apparently neither are you.
It does have something to do with anarchism, though. You see, when Fransisco Franco declared himself to be the King of Spain, a civil war began between an alliance of communists, anarchists, and liberals, the "republicans", and fascists and monarchists, the "nationalists". That political history almost definitely inspired José María Arizmendiarrieta, who escaped the firing squad due to administrative oversight, to create the Mondragon Corporation. It is because of that, in the Basque region of Spain, a loosely affiliated set of republican forces, whom we can both adequately and inadequately characterize as anarchists, were willing to live, fight, and die for both the lofty republican ideals that they shared and in opposition to the obvious threat of fascism that we now even have this idea, and it is a good one, of a vaguely participatory economic corporate structure, that of the cooperative.
Quoting Xtrix
Please do not offer me the pretense of knowledge that you have over a political philosophy that you do not support again. There is no reason to be condescending. Perhaps, you are aware of our political differences, but I could probably you a lot more about them than you will ever know.
Quoting Xtrix
While that may sound very reasonable and open-minded, it just simply is not true. You're not going to find anyone who supports cooperatives who doesn't chart in the bottom left quadrant of the Political Compass. While you can bill and may even be able to sell cooperatives as appealing to some sort of a-political humanism, which Arizmendiarrieta did, and I don't even really mind, upon entering any form of political debate whatsoever, you will find that such ideas are considered to be "left-wing", if not even "radical".
All of which is to say nothing of what qualms I have with these sort of ostensive a-political initiatives. In so far that both parties are willing to agree to some form of free association, which is to say not to make an attempt to secure any agency over the other, the only kind of ethical socio-political relationship, should such left-wing liberals, and let's be honest, unless you are a very open-minded Libertarian, you can only be a left-wing liberal, be unwilling to ally themselves with us, which you clearly are, though, as a rather isolated anarchist, I do understand as to how and why this is, then it would seem, and I do mean this metaphorically, as there are clear examples of successful cooperatives outside of such caricature, that the cooperative movement should be exclusively for attractive, young, reasonably well well off hipsters who are more than willing to dress as if it was there only chance to see Parquet Courts on a daily basis behind the counter of a coffee shop, or, in short, what, according to Karl Marx is emphatically not, but people do just simply say is "petit bourgeois".
A relatively short note about hipster coffee shops:
The qualms that I have are not with these establishments per se, as I am likely to mill about them, but moreso with that they just won't hire me. It's not that I don't have an eclectic set of interests in music, literature, and film or cool enough clothes purchased on consignment, though there are certain aesthetic considerations to take in there; it's that I am not of a certain aesthetic, intellectual, or socio-economic class. There are a set of circumstantial conditions to be met so as to be of either an aesthetic or intellectual class, but, having a certain degree of monetary wealth, or, at least, growing up with it, is certainly an advantage. To apply the metaphor to what I'm driving at, it's kind of like how some people just don't make it within certain hip gentrifying parts of town on account of not being young, urban, and professional enough to afford an increase in the price of renting an apartment. All of which, I mean as a social critique so as to be willing to put into question, despite what is veritable of it, what you might call, "New School chic", particularly within activist circles.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the cooperative movement, though, aside from its advocates. There's a certain degree of mutual mistrust between anarchists and left-wing liberals, though, which, for both sides, has, at least, some basis, and, so, it is all somehow understandable. I'm just kind of perpetually vexed by never being able to get anything off of the ground. I left the anarchist movement anyways, though. Oh well.
Ok, you know it isn't run democratically in a literal direct democracy. But, you believe it is a representative democracy. It's not, so your analogy fails. In a very plainly obvious way. Quoting Xtrix
Alright, your post is just rhetoric followed by contradiction. But, I thought this choice to sign it with an insult was cute. So, here's the secret. A co-op is a way to get people to work harder for less money with the belief they own something. But, if they lose that job can they sell off the mill they were running? No, cause they don't own anything. If anything it's a bloated labor union with forced capital infusion by it's own employees. It's a union that is not opposed to the company? Sure fire way to prevent exploitation there; I admire your vigor for your bad argument and intolerable persona.
No.
It is both worker owned and partly worker managed. Not all the managers are from the workforce -- some are brought from outside. Who decides that? The workers who own the company, of course.
Quoting Cheshire
They're paid better than most corporations, actually; and they don't "believe" they own something, they do own something: namely, the company. You said so yourself. So who's contradicting himself?
Quoting Cheshire
But they do. You're simply living in a dreamworld I guess.
Quoting Cheshire
I admire your attempt to cover for the fact that you're struggling to understand all of this. Fairly common, though.
It's quite simple: democracy at work. We're for it or against it. If you're against it, then by all means be happy with working at companies in which you have absolutely no say, for a wage determined by people who make more in an hour than you make in a year, Uncle Tom.
It's not and I know, because I worked in metal box in 110F making other people rich. Then sat through more sociology and economics lectures than you are aware of exist. Yes, there is a problem with the labor market functionally and morally. But, the people that both understand it and want to change it are fairly limited. Pretending a capitalist enterprise hangs co-op on the door will fix anything is the result of not knowing enough to understand your wrong. Yes, there is a problem. No, this is not the simple solution. On a side note I've never worked in a shop the was willing to own a Fagor machine tool, but I've heard stories. The devices basically self destruct every time you home them to machine reference. You are an asset to people that want to show the unreasonable nature of the opposition. You are helping your masters.
Since the term "anarchism" is meaningless until it's explained, I have nothing to support. Certainly not here, which is not the topic under discussion, which is the structure of corporations. If you want to ramble on about your vast knowledge about anarchism, you're welcome to. This is why you repeatedly get ignored.
Quoting thewonder
Yes, it is true. I know conservatives, Republicans, blue-collar workers, White-collar workers, and everyone in between, who want more say in their jobs, who want better wages, who want job security, a better work environment, etc. Most importantly, they don't give a damn about labels. The fact that you do, and want to turn this into a discussion about anarchism, is your own issue.
Quoting thewonder
I don't care what they're labeled. Listen to conservative media --according to them, helping an old lady across the street is considered socialist. The infrastructure bill is being called "socialist," etc. Who cares?
Sorry, I stopped reading your post at this point. Too long -- and you haven't earned the assumption of relevance.
Which proves how well indoctrination works. To convince the slaves to love their slavery is an impressive feat, begging your pardon. I don't fault you for it.
Quoting Cheshire
I don't consider this a merit. It probably accounts for the false consciousness you demonstrate.
Quoting Cheshire
You just aren't understanding what I'm saying, I'm afraid. I never once advocated for a capitalist enterprise window-dressing by claiming it's a co-op. Of course that wouldn't fix anything.
I'm advocating against the capitalist form of corporate governance. Plain and simple.
Quoting Cheshire
I don't think there are simple solutions either. Moving out of feudalism wasn't simple or quick or easy either. Ditto slavery. Ditto monarchy. These things take a long time, lots of discussions, lots of mistakes, lots of failures and successes over long periods of time. The co-op model is one alternative to a capitalist-run corporation, and I point that out because it's practical and provides demonstrable insights into alternative ways of running businesses. That's all. No magic bullet, no perfection, no utopia.
Quoting Cheshire
Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so.
:roll:
The shortest definition for anarchism is "libertarian socialism". Some people prefer to say that it is a political philosophy that attempts to reify the "abolition of all hierarchy", but, though I do think that that is more descriptive of its teleological goal, I don't, necessarily.
My point about cooperatives is that they do have a history that relates to anarchism, as the creator of the Mondragon Corporation narrowly escaped the firing squad during the Spanish Civil War.
My personal kvetch against this a-political, but anti-capitalist initiative that you have proposed is that you seem to want participatory economics, a libertarian socialist idea, without any libertarian socialists involved.
Quoting Xtrix
I really don't understand why it is that you feel a need to make consistent demeaning quips, outside, of course, that it does happen to be a rhetorical strategy that offers you the pretense of intellectual superiority. Apt sophistry, pseud.
Yes, because they are stupid ideas. If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder. The flex economy adopted to scale erases this deeper entrenchment solution. If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. If I can refuse work on the days I'm not paid enough, then I am in power. You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination.
According to who?
Doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant.
Quoting thewonder
Yes and Lenin had ties to Marx, and Biden has ties to Adam Smith, and I have ties to Fundamentalist Christianity. Fine. Now let's discuss the corporation.
Quoting thewonder
Everyone is welcome, and everyone can be involved. I don't care what you call yourself. You're anarchist? Wonderful. Libertarian? Socialist? Communist? Conservative? Liberal? Makes no difference to me. I work with people from not only different political views, but religious as well -- from all kinds of cultures. What's the problem?
Quoting thewonder
Sorry, but I thought that was pretty factual. I think you yourself have mentioned something to that effect -- that you wonder off topic, that your posts are long, etc. You're also not a great writer or communicator of your ideas. I'm not much better, and don't have anything else to say about you as an individual because I don't know you.
Democracy is a stupid idea. Co-ops are a stupid idea. Interesting perspective. :smirk:
I'll take the word of those who work in co-ops over yours any day.
Quoting Cheshire
This is almost laughable. This would "break capitalism," eh? And you have the gall to accuse anyone of "stupid ideas"?
Quoting Cheshire
Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done.
Quoting Cheshire
No, that's exactly what you're doing. Speaking of "stupid ideas."
"I'm advocating against the capitalist form of corporate governance. Plain and simple."
If you're too indoctrinated to understand what this means, then there's no point pretending to have a discussion.
Ummm....that you have a career ahead of you obviously means that you don't need a safety net for so long? For crying out loud, how difficult is it for you to understand that a 16 year old is poor, doesn't get the highest pay and often can be out of work, but that actually has been quite normal? Because usually sooner or later generations have found a job and made a career in something.
During the 16-24 period usually people study and many don't work during that. The simple fact is that without tertiary education it's hard to find great job opportunities. Is it so incredible to understand that people who have summer jobs then are part of the year unemployed?
Quoting Isaac
Again the motives of employers are not speculation, but a fact.
Quoting Isaac
I don't know what you are talking about here, because this doesn't make any sense.
This debate is simply very moronic and going nowhere.
Quoting Xtrix Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine.
Quoting Xtrix
Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie.
Cooperatives exist all over, and are run exactly that way.
And to argue that capitalism is "efficient" is beyond laughable. Efficient for shareholders, no doubt. But not for anyone else. In fact it's destructive.
Which is why you see the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable themselves rejecting this notion in favor of "stakeholder capitalism."
Quoting Cheshire
No, I do get it. More tired, boring capitalist ideas to solve capitalism: "free-er markets!" "More competition!" Yet again more Milton Friedman bullshit. Tired, failed, simplistic thinking. But you're welcome to your zombie ideas.
Quoting Cheshire
Are you just an idiot? Apparently. Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? Then why repeat the lie:
Quoting Cheshire
You liar you. How can you say they're "worker owned" -- don't you know that's an illusion!
:lol:
Welcome, how? You've been nothing but dismissive and snide. Am I considered for membership within a cooperative that you are a part of? Probably not. It's just like the aforementioned coffee shop, or even Occupy. They wanted to be anti-capitalist, as it was in vogue then to be somehow disaffected as it is now, and experiment with direct democracy, having taken a leaf from ¡Democracia Real YA!, who never had this problem, I might add, all under the lucrative direction of Adbusters, but they didn't really care too much for anarchists, communists, socialists, etc. Sure, there were a variegated set of reasons for this, but one of which was that admitting that anti-capitalism is just simply "left-wing" and that the direct democracy that they sought to carry out does ultimate within participatory democracy, of which the two most notable historical examples of are the Paris Commune and certain localities under the Second Spanish Republic, would play into the media characterization of the movement as having been "radical", which, if it does denote that a political philosophy goes beyond liberal democracy, was just simply true. I believe that José María Arizmendiarrieta was an a-political humanist. You, I think, are a left-wing liberal who has characterized cooperatives as being a-political so as to broaden your potential support base, which is just fine, but does kind of leave us out in the process.
Why? What do you mean by "you are bound to only have a few people who truly understand the democratic process"???
Quoting thewonder
At least we agree on this.
Quoting thewonder
Good to be honest here. Because many times things that seem OK on paper, when you think of them theoretically, miss the crucial element of the actual people and how they come along with each other. That naturally depends on a variety of things as people can be very different and just one individual in a group can either make it work or make it to brake up.
Quoting thewonder
Sure. But as in my country there are large and well performing cooperatives, I'm of the view that in the end the normal day-to-day functions of a cooperative aren't so different from a corporation. Naturally the whole discourse and activity around the company stock doesn't exist, yet they look quite the same.
In so far that you have a too complex of a democratic process, only a few people will understand how it works.
Quoting ssu
That's fair enough, but I think that the gradualist elements that I have incorporated do kind of safeguard against potential failures, at least, that's what they're intended to do.
Quoting ssu
Working in a cooperative does seem very much preferable to me than working elsewhere. Alas, though, and I am sure that I have some rather mythic notions in this regard, I don't live in a Nordic country, and, so, will have to figure something else out.
? It's not like it's a club, for God's sakes. We're talking about a form of organizing a business.
Quoting thewonder
I have not once characterized cooperatives as a-political. I'm sure the workers within a cooperative have plenty of ideas about politics. Same with any fortune 500 corporation, for that matter. I'm simply talking about how the corporation is structured. Do you know anything about that or not? Are you capable of answering the above questions, or not? If you'd rather insist on diverting the discussion into something that interests you, or that you think you're knowledgable about, fine. But then don't whine when people ignore you.
And you really think that is the silver bullet?
Quoting Xtrix
At least here there are. I think many of these issues seem to be basic issues that ought to be covered by labor laws. Starting from the fact that workers are heard about things concerning their jobs and salary as one entity too.
Is this a serious question?
No, of course it's not a silver bullet. But it's an important place to start. Assuming we value democracy and the empowerment of working people.
Quoting ssu
That would be great too, of course. Right now there's none of that -- in a capitalist-run corporation. You have no say, no input, no vote. You can complain to your manager if you want to, but good luck with that. You have no access to corporate boardrooms, no representation on the board, no vote for the board, and so absolutely no say in the major decisions of the company in which you work and produce profits for.
Democracy to work sets actually high standards to the people.
Quoting thewonder
Well, what is so wrong with a having a company where the workers own the shares of the company? In the end if you want, you can sell your shares. I think the major criticism about current corporations is that ownership has been institutionalized in such a way that
I think here in the discussion it should be worth mentioning that in economic theory, the theory of a business or a company, is basically something totally similar to a service you buy. The contract with the person is just far more than one single transaction. And that's basically it. The alternative for any company, be it a corporation or a cooperative, is that you simply buy the service, the work, from individuals and not have any company. Because a company is nothing else but an complex contract.
You know, Xtrix, I'm not a great fan of labour unions. I don't even belong to one (which was looked with much resentment in one academic workplace).
Yet the simple fact is that some labor presentation IS CRUCIAL. Just as labor laws are essential for the whole system to work.
I always take the example of the active military officers in the Finnish Army. Nearly all of them (well over 90%) belong to a trade union. And they truly, really truly, ARE NOT LEFTISTS. There was a huge outcry in the 1960's when an openly social democrat guy tried to get into career officer course. He wasn't let in (as military officers cannot be party members, only when they retire). The Soviet Union (and it's Finnish Communists) tried to infiltrate the Finnish Army after 1919 onward. Never had any luck, even if the Russian intelligence services are awesome otherwise. Hence being part of a labor union isn't a left / right issue. Even some libertarians understand that. Unfortunately this a major problem in the US.
Hence the labor union issue, or basically the labor movement, isn't a leftist issue. It's simply a rational issue.
Without any collective bargaining the employer and the owner can treat employees as pig shit. Not that all do that, but some surely will if they are given the opportunity.
I don't think that I quite believe that stock buybacks are where most of a company's profits go, but, sure, the board directors more or less control any given corporation. I don't think that too many people deny that.
Quoting Xtrix
Metaphorically speaking, what is a set of references, job experiences, and experiences within higher education other than a set of status symbols? Even not so metaphorically speaking, I could still beg the same question.
Quoting Xtrix
The point that I am raising about anarchism and cooperatives is that, in so far that a cooperative is aware that a prospective employee is an anarchist, they are probably less likely to hire them, despite, that, in a way, the whole thing is kind of an anarchistesque idea. There are reasons for this, though, some of which are better than others and some of which aren't really all that justified at all.
Quoting Xtrix
I really did just respond to the thread from my perspective. I took a certain degree of liberty of the aforementioned "perspective", which I will even apologize for, but that is all that really happened. If you think about it, when else will I have the opportunity to talk about libcom's misguided near rejection of participatory economics? There's something to said for listening to people, I guess, but a missed opportunity is just that.
Quoting ssu
There's a difference, though, between adequate standards and absurd ones. I generally invoke The New York Times for what I think the expected reading level ought to be for anything that needs to be commonly understood. If something requires a postgraduate education to understand, particularly when it is something that is expected to be understood by most people or when it is something that most people ought to figure out, then, it has not been expressed in a clear and concise enough manner.
Quoting ssu
That doesn't seem to pose too much of a problem to me. I don't know, though. I don't live there.
You make less sense the more obnoxious you become. The claim above doesn't even make sense. Even in your normal naive way. Being worker owned is not the same as worker managed. You can tell because we use to different words to indicate the difference. Seriously though, I'm seeing how people become politically revolted and drift right. If you could refrain from speaking in public the rest of us would really appreciate it.
In your own words, beliefs, and benefits it has in life it would seem. See, I happen to see your views as wrong, and so I have no disdain or even agitation in being insulted by someone I view as 'wrong' for as it is written, if these [your] works are wrong they will fail. Instead I feel neither pity nor superiority but concern to perhaps benefit you. Yet you seem to have no desire to benefit anyone else but yourself and your own belief. That's why I take offense. And sure, I could be wrong entirely. That should warrant compassion and guidance not wrath and insult. But again, you just don't seem to want that on those who need it, which is where my agitation comes from.
Quoting Xtrix
So why not have just said the "simple answer" from the get go instead of engaging in this pseudo-intellectual hullabaloo of a discussion? You have an answer to a question, and it cannot be proven wrong for you know all as far as this specific topic. Wonderful. Famous last words, but whatever keeps you going, you know? See, this is propaganda, not a debate. I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right, just simply by all definitions this is not a debate but an assertion, which is simply not what this site is for. You are here to baby people actually, because if you gave your audience any real benefit of the doubt let alone respect you would have been straightforward with your belief - I'm sorry "the ultimate truth" - from the get go, yet you were not. So at best you view the readers who don't agree with your beliefs as lost sheep or at worst .. to quote you "thin-skinned babies" who post "stupid" comments. And that's great, this is an open discussion forum. Just don't expect everyone to believe what you believe or think your understanding is absolute or relevant to anyone but yourself.
Thanks. But isn't "corporation" a business term (large company)? Wouldn't the term "organization" fit better? Anyway, whatever you call it, I don't think that politics have anything to do with corporate administration and management. They are never part of the daily agenda.
On the other hand, "Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government" (Wikipedia)
It's a huge part where the profits do go. And that is a problem, because they aren't invested. More than a half trillion dollars annually in recent years. just by the S&P 500 companies.
All can disappear in a poof in a sharp rapid market crash.
Quoting thewonder Postgrad education means doing a doctoral thesis, basically coming up with totally new information.
Yet the more direct the democracy is, the more active and informed the citizen has to be. And basically the most important role of democracy is to give a safety valve and gives credible authority for the system. If the administration makes lousy mistakes, it's replaced in elections. Also it political leaders give the needed authority. I didn't vote for the leftists and social democrats or the greens, but I'm OK with them being in power. They won the election and could form an administration. So let the young women rule.
Quoting thewonder
I guess that where you live you do have companies where the shares of the company are owned by those who work in the company. Family owned companies, even those with stock, do exist.
Many of the problems, or what people consider to be problems, are not necessarily because of companies being corporations, but many institutional deficiencies like weak judicial supervision, corruption, non-existent labour protection and weak labor unions.
I was basically suggesting that, if an organizations democratic process is like a Rube Goldberg device, then, you will necessarily have the problem of that there will only be a few people who understands how it works. It was just to suggest dynamic and adaptability without over-complexity.
There even are leftists, social democrats, and greens. Even just having a multi-party system in the United States would make me feel that much more inclined to be somehow engaged with the political system here. Granted, the so-called "partisan deadlock" does, in ways, prevent us from having to entertain tacit Neo-Fascists or only so former Marxist-Leninists. Still, I think that the multi-party system does allow for a greater respect for pluralism and is, quite obviously, much more open.
Quoting Cheshire
So I’m selling slavery under the coercive lie that workers “own the place.” Workers ownership is a lie and hallucination. According to you.
Quoting Xtrix
To which the reply is:
Quoting Cheshire
Lol. The fact that this statement is wrapped in attempts at insulting my intelligence is hilarious.
See if you can follow in simple terms:
1) Mondragon is owned by its workers. As you mention.
2) You claim it’s a hallucination and lie that workers own anything.
3) I point out that Mondragon is owned by workers— and is not a lie, but a fact (see 1).
4) You call me naïve and state that Mondragon is not worker managed.
I try not to be mean, or an intellectual bully, but this is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. Being angry at me being an asshole doesn’t change when I also happen to be right. In this case, it’s obvious. Mondragon is owned by workers. That’s not a lie. Period. Whatever else you meant by that, who knows. But they’re owned by their workers, which is not a lie. Get it? Or do you want to continue resorting to a strange irrationality?
Let’s see if people on the internet are still capable of acknowledging reality, even when angry…
No. Because I’m talking about the structure of corporations, which is a specific type of institution (or organization).
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Corporate governance is connected to political thinking as well.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, and this is corporate governance. But it we reserve politics solely for state government, which is typical, then call this economic philosophy instead— or whatever you like. It doesn’t matter much to me. My goal is to think a little deeper about corporations. That means understanding their structure.
OK
Agreed. Bringing democracy at work, and having the workers own and run the companies themselves, is even more crucial. If we want to improve social conditions, and such massive inequality, improve the environment, stop terrible trade deals, etc., then this strikes at the heart of the matter.
Labor unions and better legislation is also very important indeed.
Quoting ssu
Glad we agree.
Fine. The question still stands: lack of faith in what? It wasn’t rhetorical.
YQuoting Outlander
Because it’s more fun seeing where people are in their understanding and why. I didn’t insult you for giving a wrong answer.
Plus I prefer not giving lectures. Questions help people think through the topic themselves first. If it turns out they’re mistaken - as you were - that’s not a fault. Attitude is.
Quoting Xtrix Oh, so it is obvious that I already know it is technically worker owned? Good, I mentioned that 4 or 5 times. Quoting Xtrix Well, no I don't. I imply that this ownership is of a limited benefit. The "whatever else you meant" is an indication you are well aware of this fact.
Quoting Xtrix I was a little irritated when I thought the position you held actually represented what you think. After reading your other posts and looking at the justifications you use; it's more than obvious you have a right wing basis. Honestly, completely honestly, there is no way to reconcile your position with any modern liberal position. And all of the tactics for argumentation you are using come out of a right wing propaganda playbook. It's satisfying to see the right have to resort to faking a position in order to draw support.
Then say it’s a lie that it matters if workers own the company or not. To claim I’m lying about the FACT that they own the company is wrong — and I have no idea about your implications, because I’m not a mind reader and you’ve said nothing about why it doesn’t matter or is of “limited benefit.” A claim I probably won’t agree with, but if you have evidence I’ll happily take a look.
Quoting Cheshire
Worker ownership is right wing? In what world? Maybe the 19th century, I guess. Who knows.
No.
Your presentation is of a left wing position as it's misunderstood by a right wing propogandist.
It’s fun to watch you try to fit what I say into your rather limited categories. Keep trying.
Quoting Cheshire
Because shares have nothing to do with ownership.
All workers joining in the overall running of the company has it simple limits, as has been said here. An organization with over 10 000 workers has to go for some kind of representative system. And much of the problems or the deficiencies can be avoided by multiple ways. These issues are very complex.
And let's not forget that there are for example public companies, which are founded not to enrich the founder or the workers themselves, but the greater community. Interesting example is how here and in Sweden the selling of alcohol is done by a government monopoly, which has long history as also a tool of social policy.
I simply think that there's isn't a one solution to an complex issue here. Economic democracy and to take into account stakeholders can be done in very many ways. And it's usually a combination of functioning institutions, but also a competitive and efficient economy is needed too. Why? Because for a healthy state and public sector you do need a healthy economy too, which creates a major part of that prosperity.
In my personal view ideologues that are fixated nearly religiously in their ideology, be it whatever, left or right, have a major problem of viewing a complex environment from various other viewpoints. It's like putting on distinct color glasses and see the surroundings in a biased way. Problems arise because their ideology hasn't been implemented. And other ideologies don't have for these people have any point to make as they are simply wrong.
:yawn:
Quoting Cheshire
:lol:
Shareholders are not the owners of a corporation, nor do they sell the corporation. If you want me to explain it to you, I will. If you want to posture, that’s your business.
This is why this thread is relevant.
It should. If your professor believes this, it’s not uncommon. It’s also completely wrong.
Shareholders are owners of shares, which are contracts with the corporation. Corporations own themselves, as legal persons. Again, I’ll go in deeper on this. I’m hoping someone else asks though— clearly you’re too interested in convincing yourself you know everything.
They are legal persons, not real persons. And they do own themselves, legally. That’s not the same thing as running itself, which is done by real humans. Mostly the board of directors and CEO.
I’ll repeat: corporations are legal persons, not real people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
Look no further than Citizens United to get a clear view of what the Supreme Court thinks of it as well.
Quoting Cheshire
That has nothing to do with ownership, dumbass.
Quoting Cheshire
The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. Neither are the board of directors, who run the company. The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. There are plenty of court cases about this as well.
What they can’t do is steal from the company. That’s illegal.
Fascinating. Now, tell me how they are different than worker-owners?
Well compare Microsoft to Mondragon, for example. Both corporations. One (it's claimed) is owned by shareholders, the other (also claimed) by workers.
What does it look like in reality? The major difference is that the board of directors in the former are elected by shareholders -- more shares, more votes, and so the major shareholders (usually other large corporations, asset managers, occasionally very wealthy individuals, etc) vote in the directors (technically, although in reality the directors basically elect themselves due to almost never being voted against). In the latter case, the workers are their own board of directors.
It's the board of directors where the major decisions get made about the allocation of resources, the distribution of profits, whether to hire or fire a CEO, whether to give to charities, etc. But that's simply not the same as "ownership." You can't own a legal person. You can certainly control it, run it, manage it -- and that's what really matters anyway.
The shareholder primacy theory is an old one, and for the last 40 or so years has dominated academia (where it came from), journalism, the business world, and popular culture. But it has no basis in law, and has been a complete failure economically -- for investors (shareholders), for corporations themselves, for employees, for the community, and for the environment.
There's plenty of references, if you like.
No.
Quoting Cheshire
No. Shareholders being the owners of a corporation is a hologram.
Quoting Cheshire
A corporation is not owned by anyone; a corporation, by law, as a legal person, owns itself. Persons, legal or otherwise, cannot be owned -- at least since we got rid of slavery.
Quoting Xtrix
Good, so a worker-owner is a nonsense term by your own reasoning.
Quoting Xtrix
About wraps that one up.
Interesting this company of yours managed to tie the manager salary to the min. wage. So, the definition of career success there is basically leaving as a manager for a better paid position or hoping to hit a ceiling and grind against it for 30yrs. It's not a good idea to limit your ability to hire the people that direct the most assets.
This doesn't make sense. I assume you mean here that the shareholders aren't in charge of corporations.
Quoting Xtrix
The ordinary argument goes that as the shareholders elect the board of directors, they have the ultimate power. This is perhaps what you call "The shareholder primacy theory" or am I mistaken?
Quoting Xtrix
I think I understand your argument.
But notice what you can do to a legal person: you can disband it. Or you can sell it and then it simply disappears from being a legal person like it had been, but a part of likely another corporation. That cannot happen with ordinary persons (since you got rid of slavery).
Not nonsense, just legally wrong. But it's true, I do use it to refer to workers (rather than shareholders) being the "owners" of the company, because that's the conventional view and common language. But yes, legally speak it's not correct.
Quoting ssu
I know, it's a weird one. I had difficulty with it at first, but this isn't my own theory -- I'm basing this on legal scholarship. The late Lynn Stout of Cornell has good work on this. Here's Richard Booth:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3350&context=cklawreview
Yes, the shareholders aren't legally in charge of the company. They are also not the legal owners. To make it easier to talk about, we speak about "share of ownership" and things like that, but it's legally erroneous. I myself didn't realize how prevalent this mistake is, in fact.
Quoting ssu
You're exactly right. It's absolutely dominant -- which is partly why this is so hard to talk about.
Here again I'm talking about legality, not what happens in practice. You would certainly think that, because shareholders have the power to vote in board members, that they just vote in people who share their views, and vote themselves in -- and that's true. But it's also more complicated than that, because rarely is one person or company the controlling shareholder.
I think the reason boards actually DO act in accord with what shareholders supposedly want is precisely because of the shareholder primacy doctrine. It's on par with a system of belief -- one that's become entrenched in boardrooms and the business world generally.
Here's Stout, who explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jdJFrG6NY
Ok, your response above was good and I got it. We avoided here stupid misunderstandings and bickering. (We will leave that to the future issues and topics :wink: )
I have to look the links you gave. An interesting topic.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, just add the fact that a huge chunk of those shareholders are institutional investors: mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. Snd naturally other corporations. This makes it totally different to lets say that you have the board of Microsoft and there as a representative of the shareholders is Bill Gates as a representative of the shares he owns.
When companies are founded from scratch, they have a link to certain human beings: the founders. And in a new sector these are the innovators who know basically all the technology and are quite apt in all of the fields. Allan Lockheed, William E. Boeing and all founders of aircraft companies were aviators themselves basically (even if there can be the odd exception). Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could use their hands to build computers. Yet once when the corporation grows and the pioneer generation retires, then it's likely that the CEO and board members aren't at all so invested at the field where the corporation competes that they would have similar abilities. They basically are recruited from a managerial class. This transforms the corporation from being lead by founders to a high paid caste of professional leader-employees taking over the corporation. The corporations becomes dis-attached from humans as owners. Large family owned corporations are rare, even if there are those still.
Appreciate the kind comments. Caught me on an off day— I’m sure I’ll be back to being an asshole soon enough.
Quoting ssu
Right, and even private corporations are fairly rare.
Once a company goes public, it’s not as if every decision changes with the aim of maximizing stock prices and dividends. The Microsoft and Apple examples are good ones — who knows how they look in 15 years or so?
The story of Apple being in trouble and then a fixer Gil Amelio as a " as a corporate rehabilitator" coming on and doing the usual layoffs and cost-cutting is telling. As if the most important thing if your losing to your competitors is to lay off people and cut costs. Luckily Jobs came back and actually saved Apple from the Amelio types and now we do have the current Apple. What the managerial-class usually lacks to understand is how the whole sector can change, that for example growth in computers and software can transform into something totally new which wasn't obvious few decades ago. The pioneers typically have a great understanding about both the little aspects and how the small detail effect the outcome and what the larger picture is and they can see where things are going. The professional managerial class cannot, has been taught in business schools that there's an "computer industry" or "aircraft industry" and treat them basically the same.
And the fact is that a committee made up career committee members simply isn't as great in innovation as genuine innovators are. The committee meetings can be done with efficiency, but that isn't what is needed when a business ought to innovate and apply new thinking.
Another very typical issue is the hostile-takeover scheme: that someone takes a huge loan and buys the stock of a corporation, then as the corporation is obviously extremely in debt due to this, sells part or all of it off to make a profit. It should be obvious that such rip-off schemes aren't good usually for either the company or the sector. Yet all this is whimsically marketed as "streamlining" and "cutting costs". And, of course, the labor unions are blamed for the "inefficiency" and losses that basically happen because of the huge debt. The absurd rhetoric is somehow accepted and many view corporate raiders as somehow having a positive effect on the private sector, something good for capitalism.
I meant to put numbers on the answer:
Percent of earnings (2007-2016)
55% stock buybacks
39% dividends
6% everything else
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lazonick.pdf
Profits are what's left over after all the operational expenses and taxes. It wouldn't make sense to say a companies profits go to wages, because those aren't profits by definition. In fact, all profits go to dividends or retained earnings or a reduction in retained earnings from treasury stock transactions. Once again there is something the matter; but framing it in a way that tries to hide bias is only discrediting. I'm not going on at length about this one. So, disagree, you know the song and dance to an empty house.
True, wages aren’t profits. When I said that I was thinking it would be clear I meant a raise in wages— i.e., giving the workers more— but fair enough.
Quoting Cheshire
No. Profits can be reinvested in the company by building new factories, buying more equipment, renovation, research, etc. They can also go to increasing worker salaries, to dividends, or to stock buybacks.
The answer is: stock buybacks. That’s where the profits are going. 94% go to this or dividends. Doesn’t leave much for the peon workers. At least since the 80s, thanks to Reagan’s administration— operating on the assumptions proposed by Milton Friedman.
Yeah, the actual cash flow can be traced from the previous year into a budget. The issue is there it's just not well represented by the percent of profits table. The problem is labor market friction. The economic force that pushes up workers salaries isn't the benevolence of the human resources department. If the HR manager jacked up everyone's paycheck they would be fired. You are right about the fact a problem exist, but what's needed is an innovative solution that functions with the rest of the economic forces in play. Universal income that we saw with the COVID unemployment proves that given the option people will hold out for what they see is fair or better than fair market value for their labor.
The solution you are offering is an old one. Basically, force companies into being their own labor union or something of the sort. But, when it works it even fails. Unions operate largely on seniority and rules instead of responding to innovative performance. The power dynamic is artificially shifted and still loses the most important aspect of the goal. Which I would argue is the ability for a worker to maximize income based on performance. In order to achieve that in todays jaded world workers need the freedom to leave for better or equal pay without needing to risk their own stability in the process. Some how quantize labor inputs and create a flawless information system and methodology for allowing the changing of jobs at will. It is a system that maintains the dynamics of supply and demand, but neutralizes the disparity in company versus employee negotiating power. Then, charge companies to use it and make yourself a billionaire.
Yes, of course. Just like what happens now. But those solutions aren’t working— which is why you mentioned “innovative”, I’m sure, and with which I agree. I think we need innovative solutions too. I’m trying to promote some of those solutions (again, not my own).
To be concrete: if wages at a company are low (compared to comparable work elsewhere), this puts them at a disadvantage— they’re more likely to have higher turnover rates, worse morale, lack of applicants, reputational damage (especially true these days where you can research a company online before applying, including worker reviews), etc. On the other hand, there are budgetary constraints — pay the workers too much, and the company may get squeezed or even put into debt, given that profit margins aren’t always the same.
It’s a complex situation, no doubt. The problem, according to research I cited by Lazonick and others, is that these decisions are being made on the basis of shareholder primacy theory. That is:
(1) under the idea that the shareholder is the owner (or partial owner) of the company (which we talked about, but let’s assume that’s true);
(2) thus the responsibility of the board of directors is to prioritize the shareholders’ aims;
(3) and that what shareholders want is to make a profit.
Therefore the responsibility of the company is to make a profit for shareholders. As you know, this was basically Friedman’s title of his famous 1970 article.
I agree with Lazonick that this is a problem. We’re seeing record profits and stagnating wages because most of the profits have been spent on buybacks and dividends— and why? Not because businessmen are evil and don’t care about their employees or community, but because this theory tells them this is what one's duties are.
More importantly, they mistake this theory for the law, and this is a myth. There’s no legal basis for shareholder primacy.
So in the end, it’s a matter of a “bad religion,” so to speak, and one that isn’t working for anybody, except for a handful of people in the short term — as can be seen when this "neoliberal era" (roughly 1980-today) is compared against the era from 1949-1979. It's a matter of ideology, which is why I've argued elsewhere (in "The State, Church, Corporation" thread) that the real power isn't necessarily in Washington or Wall Street, but in the Church of Neoliberal Capitalism.
No no. I don’t want to do anything of the kind. It’s true I value labor unions, but I don’t want to force anything. I’d like removing, in fact, some laws and regulations that are anti-union and anti-worker. But this isn't about coming in with guns and forcibly taking things over -- at least not in my thinking.
Fundamentally I want the business world to continue being capitalist if they want to, but to change the ideology back to managerialism and away from shareholder primacy, strengthen good unions, and open the space for more cooperatives. I think this is the most realistic option we have. The ultimate goal in the long term would be to dismantle illegitimate power structures altogether -- but that can't and won't happen overnight, or even in a few generations.
The era of managerialism saw the highest growth rates, and worker wages keeping up with productivity. Also has much higher union membership. This was before the financialization of the economy happened and big banks doubled in size. There’s no reason we can’t get back to that era.
I say this because the ongoing pandemic has brought questions such as redistribution of wealth, and nationalization of healthcare, education, and sanitation into greater focus. The latter, however, may not be the answer, even if it is well-intentioned, but it does highlight the fact that governments simply need to improve healthcare, sanitation, and education spending. How do we do that effectively, and how can the debates surrounding redistribution be channeled to that end?
Today, there is also the tendency to regard nationalization and privatization of industries and services as efforts aimed at redistribution. This is not so at all. An industry can be privatized or nationalized without entailing redistribution. The processes don't necessarily imply each other. In particular, the proliferation of IMF-driven neoliberal economic policies has engendered the privatization of several essential industries and services across countries, and this is often done in the name of economic growth (as one can notice, itself a dubious concept nowadays; claims about promoting economic growth also tend to to be tautological). Nonetheless, it is also presented as an inclusive economics and policy approach. In reality, however, the policies mostly embrace the trickle-down approach, which is neither all that inclusive or a redistribution effort for that matter. It mostly only results in concentration of wealth.
A good question, yes. Related to the structure of a corporation, indirectly.
I'd argue the predominant conception of "wealth" is one based in material accumulation -- in this case, the accumulation of capital. That's seen as wealth, and wealth is a means to power.
Quoting James Laughlin
Quoting James Laughlin
Which is redistribution, and which is what we see. The policies of neoliberalism -- small government, deregulation, privatization, etc. -- have lead to a massive redistribution from more egalitarian (50s, 60s) to extreme inequality. RAND corporation published a study on the numbers, and it's in the tens of trillions.
It never occurred to me that one could think of concentration as a form of redistribution, but just not egalitarian. Thanks for that. I have to agree with your argument about neoliberalism entailing redistribution in the form of concentration.