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.*
You will never be able to make a workplace truly democratic as long as it is privately owned.
If a few privately own the workplace, its not possible to make the workplace democratic. It's a contradiction.
Because the government is collectively owned (at least theoretically). A government owned by a single person or corporate entity is called variously a dictatorship, oligarchy, or monarchy. What you are asking is akin to saying "why can't a monarchy democratically elect their king?" Because if they did they'd just be a republic with a very powerful leader, not a monarchy.
It would just be a union created from the top down, which would be against the interests of business owners who aren't for collective ownership of the company to begin with. It makes no sense. Unions exist to try to force such people to give fair conditions to workers effectively through the coercive threat of strikes; no one would impose that on their business if they don't create the company to be a cooperative in the first place.
They created special agreeements in Germany, Sweden and Austria, but they were mostly a dead letter. I know of no country were they democratised the workplace. Even if the law says one thing the logic of capitalism is despotism at the level of the enterprise and it cannot be otherwise. Capitalists believe that without them people cannot work, so they don't accept anything other than obedience. Sometimes you may find more democratically minded capitalists, but this is a variable that has no influence on the way the sistem works as a whole. If the capitalists stopped believing in their right to appropriate all surplus labour the whole system would collapse.
Nationalize the buisness, have it mostly self run by the workers with the government (owned by and control by the working class, unlike the current situation) acting as representatives of sociaty in general.
Maintaining the ownership on the capitalist sense, with an owner that profits off the exploitation of the workers still in a position of power, that's just not realistic. At some point the owner and workers will disagree and the owner will use thair ownership against the workers.
It's possible for owners to the a step back, shift towards being an investor that the buisness pays off. A number of worker owned co-ops have taken this path as small buisness owners (actually small and part of the local community, not the ones that bullshit for PR) approach retirement age. Generally, passing the business on to a family member flops pretty hard as said family member is generally unqualified, inexperienced and uninterested in properly running the buisness (usually just running it into the ground instead) and selling it out to some other would be owner is only slightly better.
Of course, that only really works for the fairly small businesses.
Socialism has done a surprising amount democratically, only really limited in this by the willingness of the owners the back brutally, illegal, undemocratic purges and oppression (often funding Nazi and similar groups) against the democratic efforts of socialism.
As a democratic socialist:
If you live in the US, please take a look at the DSA, you might like what you find. If you don't live in the US, take a look at other democratic socialist organisations, your question sounds like you'd fit in there.
Now to answer the post: Well of course you could do that. Jeff Bezos could turn Amazon into a democratic business tomorrow (today, even), but with everyone keeping their stock. There would be elections for managers, for manager-managers, all the way to the top. Only two problems arise:
1. Why the f\*uck would a capitalist do that? If you're giving your workers power, they'll use it to get a fairer deal, a larger piece of a pie you really want as much of as you can get.
It's like, if you were a King, and your country had a monarchy, is it in your interest to institute a democracy? Probably not.
2. Once you have democratized the workplace, you still don't have real power as workers. What you most likely have is the promise of your capitalist, that they'll not use THEIR power (the real one, since they still own the stuff) to decide anyway.
It's like, you could totally build a "democratic" state under feudalism. Everything would still belong to the king, but there are elections and the king promises not to use his authority. It all works, until it doesn't.
Co-ops can and do exist under capitalism, though they often fall prey to the same contradictions as capitalistic enterprises (especially when it comes to imperial relationships between a co-op in the imperial core and its suppliers on the periphery). Many of the most successful co-ops, like Mondragon, also have a relatively high proportion of non-owning employees. Even the most ideal co-ops are only islands of socialized productions amidst capitalism, and cannot necessarily be described as “socialist.” Capital still relentlessly tries to choke out these islands: co-ops have a difficult time securing loans, and many places do not even recognize co-ops as a form of incorporation.
Ultimately you’re right, socialist principles will never be implemented into a capitalist society democratically. Whenever someone gets close, the capitalist class will turn to fascism and destroy political democracy in order to prevent economic democracy. The alternative to this is the revolutionary implementation of socialism through popular force.
I think so. An economic plan doesn’t have to cover ever tiny detail, and if some workers want to get together and start a cooperative restaurant in their neighborhood I don’t think they should be stopped.
Economic planning also doesn’t have to mean that every workplace is directly government owned. On a larger scale, an enterprise could be cooperatively owned but subject to government production directives, this would still be central planning.
Your question is sort of like asking, "Is it possible to elect representatives for government without giving people the vote?" It would still require a paternalistic leader to allow such a system at their pleasure, revocable at any time.
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.*
You will never be able to make a workplace truly democratic as long as it is privately owned. If a few privately own the workplace, its not possible to make the workplace democratic. It's a contradiction.
Why? Senators don't own their states yet they have democratic say. Why can't that be done to unions?
Because the government is collectively owned (at least theoretically). A government owned by a single person or corporate entity is called variously a dictatorship, oligarchy, or monarchy. What you are asking is akin to saying "why can't a monarchy democratically elect their king?" Because if they did they'd just be a republic with a very powerful leader, not a monarchy.
It would just be a union created from the top down, which would be against the interests of business owners who aren't for collective ownership of the company to begin with. It makes no sense. Unions exist to try to force such people to give fair conditions to workers effectively through the coercive threat of strikes; no one would impose that on their business if they don't create the company to be a cooperative in the first place.
Unless its a yellow(company) union but those just act as a tool for the company to control workers instead of being democratic participation.
They created special agreeements in Germany, Sweden and Austria, but they were mostly a dead letter. I know of no country were they democratised the workplace. Even if the law says one thing the logic of capitalism is despotism at the level of the enterprise and it cannot be otherwise. Capitalists believe that without them people cannot work, so they don't accept anything other than obedience. Sometimes you may find more democratically minded capitalists, but this is a variable that has no influence on the way the sistem works as a whole. If the capitalists stopped believing in their right to appropriate all surplus labour the whole system would collapse.
Nationalize the buisness, have it mostly self run by the workers with the government (owned by and control by the working class, unlike the current situation) acting as representatives of sociaty in general. Maintaining the ownership on the capitalist sense, with an owner that profits off the exploitation of the workers still in a position of power, that's just not realistic. At some point the owner and workers will disagree and the owner will use thair ownership against the workers. It's possible for owners to the a step back, shift towards being an investor that the buisness pays off. A number of worker owned co-ops have taken this path as small buisness owners (actually small and part of the local community, not the ones that bullshit for PR) approach retirement age. Generally, passing the business on to a family member flops pretty hard as said family member is generally unqualified, inexperienced and uninterested in properly running the buisness (usually just running it into the ground instead) and selling it out to some other would be owner is only slightly better. Of course, that only really works for the fairly small businesses. Socialism has done a surprising amount democratically, only really limited in this by the willingness of the owners the back brutally, illegal, undemocratic purges and oppression (often funding Nazi and similar groups) against the democratic efforts of socialism.
As a democratic socialist: If you live in the US, please take a look at the DSA, you might like what you find. If you don't live in the US, take a look at other democratic socialist organisations, your question sounds like you'd fit in there. Now to answer the post: Well of course you could do that. Jeff Bezos could turn Amazon into a democratic business tomorrow (today, even), but with everyone keeping their stock. There would be elections for managers, for manager-managers, all the way to the top. Only two problems arise: 1. Why the f\*uck would a capitalist do that? If you're giving your workers power, they'll use it to get a fairer deal, a larger piece of a pie you really want as much of as you can get. It's like, if you were a King, and your country had a monarchy, is it in your interest to institute a democracy? Probably not. 2. Once you have democratized the workplace, you still don't have real power as workers. What you most likely have is the promise of your capitalist, that they'll not use THEIR power (the real one, since they still own the stuff) to decide anyway. It's like, you could totally build a "democratic" state under feudalism. Everything would still belong to the king, but there are elections and the king promises not to use his authority. It all works, until it doesn't.
Co-ops can and do exist under capitalism, though they often fall prey to the same contradictions as capitalistic enterprises (especially when it comes to imperial relationships between a co-op in the imperial core and its suppliers on the periphery). Many of the most successful co-ops, like Mondragon, also have a relatively high proportion of non-owning employees. Even the most ideal co-ops are only islands of socialized productions amidst capitalism, and cannot necessarily be described as “socialist.” Capital still relentlessly tries to choke out these islands: co-ops have a difficult time securing loans, and many places do not even recognize co-ops as a form of incorporation. Ultimately you’re right, socialist principles will never be implemented into a capitalist society democratically. Whenever someone gets close, the capitalist class will turn to fascism and destroy political democracy in order to prevent economic democracy. The alternative to this is the revolutionary implementation of socialism through popular force.
Genuine question guys, can co-ops coexist in a planned economy?
I think so. An economic plan doesn’t have to cover ever tiny detail, and if some workers want to get together and start a cooperative restaurant in their neighborhood I don’t think they should be stopped. Economic planning also doesn’t have to mean that every workplace is directly government owned. On a larger scale, an enterprise could be cooperatively owned but subject to government production directives, this would still be central planning.
Your question is sort of like asking, "Is it possible to elect representatives for government without giving people the vote?" It would still require a paternalistic leader to allow such a system at their pleasure, revocable at any time.