• Infynis@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.

      Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal

        • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well the main thing is the concentration of capital. Guys like Jeff Bezos aren’t interested in founding cooperatively-owned companies, and they have all of the money. Add in the fact that average people are very strongly atomized and prevented from forming stable social bonds, and the likelihood that you’ll get a cadre of people together who want to start a cooperative business and can also afford to do so is very, very low.

          That said, the few coops that manage to exist are often the best places in their industry to work, precisely because the profits are shared more equally than in the more common private or publicly traded corporations.

        • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.

          Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.

            In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.

            This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              All people are essentially born with no assets

              False. The children of rich people are born rich. That’s a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.

              • DataDecay@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.

                • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother’s mementos unless you’re rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.

                  • DataDecay@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’d rather sell off mementos than lose livelihood. We all know the top 1% shelter and live off non income based tax shelters, and then just pass those shelters on through legacies. Given the arbitrary caps on assets your grandmother’s Polaroids would likely be safe. You wont see good faith attempts to fix taxes regardless though, as politicians are in the business of making money, so would never go after their own livelihood.

            • gerbilOFdoom@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Inflation’s been happening since currency was created. We don’t notice day to day because the effects are stretched over a long period.

              Try calculating the value of a 2010 dollar against the current 2023 dollar. You’ll find the cumulative effect of ~5% inflation each year is significant.

              In addition, periods exist throughout American history during which inflation has spiked noticably within a year or two - this is nowhere near the first time.

        • Sanctus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren’t there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Did… did I say they couldn’t? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        So ah… What’s the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.

        • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They said it in the first comment

          they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The western left doesn’t agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.

            • hglman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.

    • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM

        • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those lazy commies with their limp wristed excuses like: “The reality of living under a capitalist society”. Why don’t they just eat some bootstrap stew like my pa did and die of preventable illness generating labor value for someone else?

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              ·
              1 year ago

              We were talking about worker-owned companies, none of those are worker-owned companies and therefore don’t actually refute anything.

            • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wait…so these are your examples of people who “did something”

              Do you realize that the edge every single one of these companies had over the others is the willingness to do whatever it takes to extract as much value from labor for the least amount of money, right?

              You are just making the case for the complete destruction of capitalism. Only soulless psychopaths are rewarded here. Winning is not beating these people at the same psychotic game that they’re playing.

                • aebletrae [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is the reasoning that leads to “if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them” with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose “choices” are not as unconstrained as the ones you’re familiar with.

                • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No one cares if you “buy into” anything. It exists whether you believe it or not.

                  The entire point of keeping unemployment at certain levels is so capitalists can dictate wages and responsibilities. It’s not a secret. Bourgeois media openly panics whenever unemployment levels get too low.

                • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I try to tell myself that most of the people bought into capitalism can be rehabilitated, maybe some just need to spend a few years breaking rocks to get it through their heads that other people fucking exist on this planet.

                  Reading your comments has made me re-evaluate that

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t buy into that lame beta theory of gravity. You go down. If you don’t feel like going down, go up. It’s that simple. That is the beauty of jumping. I can jump as high as I want

            • cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Tesla is not close to bigger than GM. They only make consumer vehicles and maybe a model of semi truck but I don’t think that’s being produced yet, while GM has been making consumer cars in addition to commercial and military vehicles for decades. They might be valued as more but that doesn’t really say anything in practical terms.

        • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re asking people with little to no resources to take on people who have all the resources.

          You don’t seem like you understand modern capitalism.

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won’t bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That’s the actual system I see.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What poor people do you think are donating wages to “radical politicians”? Have you ever met any poor people?

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Okay I said I was done talking with you but I actually love any excuse to nerd out on this so here:

                  The state of California has mandated compostable household and business waste be separated out and picked up separately much like recycling is already separated. This is a law that is already in effect; however, they have declined to enforce it so far. They have recently began making statements that they will begin enforcing the law and fining businesses and property owners for not complying.

                  Many small municipalities (and some big ones) have not even started setting up the infrastructure to do so. They’re way behind.

                  This means there is a captive market for a company providing those services. A potentially huge market.

                  Now anyone can set up a waste collection service, it’s pretty standardized, but here’s where my idea is different. A technology called pyrolization.. It mostly requires organic materials, lots of em. In essence, it’s burning without fire. The input is organic material, the output is a stable carbon-rich solid called biochar (similar to charcoal except not as flammable), and something called syngas, which is similar to natural gas. With the right machinery, the process produces energy and is carbon-negative.

                  The carbon-negative aspect is the selling point. Do you know how many carbon-negative businesses there are? You could probably count them, globally, on both hands. This would play EXTREMELY well in California.

                  Pyrolysis is not a new technology, but applying it at scale is. Currently it’s mainly in use as a way of processing human waste. There’s a company called BioForceTech in the Bay Area that has a successfully operating pyrolysis machine processing human waste, and they have machines globally that also process feedstock like wood chips and nut shells. Municipal organic waste would require a sorting machine for sure, but other than that it could use their machine just fine. And the sorting machine wouldn’t have to be as complex as those in municipal compost systems: if plastic gets mixed into your compost, that’s bad. If plastic gets mixed into something you’re just going to burn and bury, not a huge deal.

                  $850,000 is not enough to set something up like this on the municipal level. That would take millions. It’s enough to get buy-in from BioForceTech, ReCology (bay area waste management company that has experience with waste-gas powered trucks, and compost sorting machines), investors, and local and state government (the state has several grant and loan programs for “green” businesses, especially in waste collection).

                  In my opinion the biggest, most profitable market would be Santa Clara County or Alameda County, both in the bay area and both have limited compost pickup presently. But that’s a big bite to chew and I think beyond the capabilities of a new business. Something like small towns in Mendocino County would be perfect - small enough that they don’t have municipal organics collection aside from maybe yard trimmings, liberal enough that the carbon-negative aspect would play well, rural enough to have plenty of cheap land for a processing facility.

                  So that’s our market. We get to charge customers for the pickup, and then sell the power generated as “clean energy”. Not to mention the whole thing functions like a peaker plant. When electricity prices are low, you can adjust the output ratio to create more biochar - adding to the carbon-negative selling point (and getting some money from cap and trade). When electricity prices are high, you can get more syngas and burn it as carbon-neutral energy.

                  The one thing I’m not very familiar on and would need to consult experts on is the regulations involved in the “selling electricity” aspect. The regulatory burden may make that part not feasible, I just don’t know enough about it.

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.

    • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      The system actively discourages that. It was tried in the 70s. Banks wouldn’t work with coops because they were diffrent. Other companies wouldn’t work with them because they didn’t being as high a ROI. They were more efficient and stable, but under capitalism none of that matters.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like “there’s nothing stopping someone who’s born poor from becoming a millionaire”. Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there’s so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it’s almost statistically impossible. It’s so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok now I know you’re a troll. And a liar.

          Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they’re a rounding error. I don’t think you’re one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.

          Actually, I bet you’re not even a millionaire.

          Whatever it is, the point is that what you’re claiming is so statistically rare, I don’t believe you. And then you’re also claiming it’s common.

          Ergo, troll.

          I’m done talking with you.

          • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It’s scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don’t speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you’re so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you’re trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you’re talking about.

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics… right?

              They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you’re still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you’re already familiar with this. You’re correct in asserting that you’re stuck just having to “believe” your sources don’t use slave labor, because you’re sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.

                  The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn’t very helpful.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…

                  It’s so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          but the workers could do it if they wanted

          Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it’s so stacked against it occurring, it’s effectively impossible.

          The state of the economy today is what’s stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.

          Edit: I’m really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. “Nothing is stopping you.” Yeah and “nothing” is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of “nothing”. Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it’s possible.

            • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet’s is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You haven’t owned coffee places. You’ve been entirely wrong on how to source coffee plus your description of what even makes coffee. If you used to own them, you probably ran them into the ground. You’re objectively wrong on coffee production.

                • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Peet’s had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet’s and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn’t even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.

                  But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.

              You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you’re not competing if you aren’t actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you’re saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan.

          You know the great majority of people don’t have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Own outright? Or have a mortgage?

              Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that’s still over a third of the population who can’t even consider getting a loan like you described.

              And for those that COULD, they’re betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It’s not an even playing field, at all.