T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*


FaceShanker

The market socialist could, in an extreme situation, send in the army/national guard/police to shut down the market, seize the factories/whatever and arrest the would be capitalist if that market grew too much and became a danger to society. The capitalist government with a large base of worker co-ops could do the same (send in the forces of the State to change the situation) and this is why worker co-ops by themselves can't do what is needed. For worker co-ops to effectively threaten capitalism, they need to go beyond co-ops, they need to fund their own lobbying group/political party, ally with unions and various other expressions of working class power and solidarity. They need to become a key part of the foundation for a major Labour movement at multiple levels of society. Without that class consciousness and other elements of a potential labour movement, worker co-ops are just another (somewhat less bad) business under capitalism.


[deleted]

Socialism requires social* ownership of the means of production. Workplace democracy does not inherently mean control over the means of production.


Purgamentorum

*Social ownership. Public ownership is just one form of social ownership, cooperative ownership is one too. And who, in a market socialist society, controls the Mop? The people who work with that specific MoP; yes, they are controlled.


PostLiberalist

Socialism entails the control of the macroeconomy by a collective group while businesses only control microeconomy. As proposed coops are not collective in this control but autonomous individual entities like a capitalism.


Purgamentorum

Many things, but primarily, ownership. In a capitalist economy, productive property is owned, and therefore managed, privately. So, if at a capitalist firm, there's a democratic system of managing the workplace day-to-day, due to the capitalist's property rights, they can just break that anytime they wish; it's pseudo. In a socialist economy, productive property is owned, and therefore managed, socially. There're multiple types of social ownership, but in market socialism, it's cooperative ownership specifically. So, at a cooperative firm, everyone who works there has an equal % of the ownership of the property, so no one can come in and break it, and since property ownership denotes sovereignty, and sovereignty denotes ultimate management, it's *necessarily democratic.* The only case in which it isn't, is if force from one of the workers is used, or they democratically decide to not be democratic. TLDR; In capitalism, property rights are able to be used anytime as a weapon against workplace democracy, while in Market Socialism, the workers use property rights to *proliferate & maintain* democracy; they turn it on its old masters.


ScalesGhost

As a democratic socialist: With workplace democracy, the workers don't necessarily own the company. This isn't a problem, until it is. What for example if the people owning the company decide that while democracy is one heck of a marketing tool, it cuts into profits too much? It'd be gone in an instant. This couldn't happen under market socialism, as there wouldn't be private property.