The idea of a free market economy where all businesses are worker cooperatives—and whether such a system (often called market socialism)—could work is a topic of significant debate. Let’s break this down:
---
### 1. Can All Businesses Be Cooperatives in a Free Market? A cooperative economy would mean replacing traditional capitalist firms (owned by shareholders) with worker-owned cooperatives, where employees democratically control the business and share profits. Here’s the case for and against:
#### Arguments For - Feasibility: - Existing Examples: Worker cooperatives like Spain’s Mondragon Corporation (a federation of 260+ cooperatives with 80,000+ workers) and Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region (where 30% of GDP comes from cooperatives) show cooperatives can thrive in competitive markets. - Resilience: Studies suggest cooperatives often have higher productivity, lower turnover, and greater stability during crises (e.g., the 2008 recession). - Ethical Incentives: Worker-owners have a direct stake in the firm’s success, aligning incentives for innovation and efficiency.
- Market Compatibility: - Cooperatives can compete in free markets, setting prices, responding to demand, and reinvesting profits. Markets need not disappear—they’d just operate within a framework of worker ownership.
#### Challenges - Capital Acquisition: - Cooperatives often struggle to raise external investment, as traditional investors seek equity ownership and high returns. Solutions like "non-voting shares" or cooperative banks (e.g., Italy’s Banca Popolare) could help, but scaling this globally is untested. - Startups in high-risk sectors (e.g., tech) might face hurdles without venture capital’s risk-tolerant model.
- Scalability and Decision-Making: - Large cooperatives require complex democratic governance, which can slow decision-making. Mondragon mitigates this with hybrid structures (e.g., elected managers), but critics argue this risks recreating hierarchies. - Industries requiring rapid innovation (e.g., AI, biotech) might struggle with consensus-driven models.
- Systemic Barriers: - Legal and financial systems in capitalist economies favor traditional corporate structures. Transitioning to a cooperative economy would require rewriting corporate law, tax codes, and financial regulations.
---
### 2. Can Market Socialism Work? Market socialism combines worker ownership with market competition, rejecting both central planning and capitalist ownership. Key features: - Worker-Owned Firms: Employees control workplaces democratically. - Markets for Goods/Services: Prices are set by supply and demand, not state planners. - Social Welfare and Regulation: Strong safety nets, antitrust laws, and environmental regulations prevent market excesses.
#### Case Studies and Models - Yugoslavia’s Experiment (1950s–1980s): - Practiced "worker self-management" in a market framework. Initially successful (high growth, reduced inequality), but later collapsed due to debt, ethnic tensions, and inefficiencies. - Lessons: Worker control alone isn’t sufficient without macroeconomic stability, democratic institutions, and checks on bureaucracy.
- Modern Examples: - Mondragon, Spain: Thrives in manufacturing, finance, and education, balancing competition with solidarity (e.g., wage ratios capped at 6:1). - Kerala, India: A mix of cooperatives, public sector, and private firms in a regulated market, achieving high human development indicators.
- Theoretical Models: - David Schweickart’s "Economic Democracy": Combines worker cooperatives, public control of investment (via a capital assets tax), and markets. Profits fund public goods and new cooperatives. - Richard Wolff’s "Workers’ Self-Directed Enterprises": Similar to Schweickart but emphasizes workplace democracy over state intervention.
The idea of a free market economy where all businesses are worker cooperatives—and whether such a system (often called market socialism)—could work is a topic of significant debate. Let’s break this down:
---
### 1. Can All Businesses Be Cooperatives in a Free Market? A cooperative economy would mean replacing traditional capitalist firms (owned by shareholders) with worker-owned cooperatives, where employees democratically control the business and share profits. Here’s the case for and against:
#### Arguments For - Feasibility: - Existing Examples: Worker cooperatives like Spain’s Mondragon Corporation (a federation of 260+ cooperatives with 80,000+ workers) and Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region (where 30% of GDP comes from cooperatives) show cooperatives can thrive in competitive markets. - Resilience: Studies suggest cooperatives often have higher productivity, lower turnover, and greater stability during crises (e.g., the 2008 recession). - Ethical Incentives: Worker-owners have a direct stake in the firm’s success, aligning incentives for innovation and efficiency.
- Market Compatibility: - Cooperatives can compete in free markets, setting prices, responding to demand, and reinvesting profits. Markets need not disappear—they’d just operate within a framework of worker ownership.
#### Challenges - Capital Acquisition: - Cooperatives often struggle to raise external investment, as traditional investors seek equity ownership and high returns. Solutions like "non-voting shares" or cooperative banks (e.g., Italy’s Banca Popolare) could help, but scaling this globally is untested. - Startups in high-risk sectors (e.g., tech) might face hurdles without venture capital’s risk-tolerant model.
- Scalability and Decision-Making: - Large cooperatives require complex democratic governance, which can slow decision-making. Mondragon mitigates this with hybrid structures (e.g., elected managers), but critics argue this risks recreating hierarchies. - Industries requiring rapid innovation (e.g., AI, biotech) might struggle with consensus-driven models.
- Systemic Barriers: - Legal and financial systems in capitalist economies favor traditional corporate structures. Transitioning to a cooperative economy would require rewriting corporate law, tax codes, and financial regulations.
---
### 2. Can Market Socialism Work? Market socialism combines worker ownership with market competition, rejecting both central planning and capitalist ownership. Key features: - Worker-Owned Firms: Employees control workplaces democratically. - Markets for Goods/Services: Prices are set by supply and demand, not state planners. - Social Welfare and Regulation: Strong safety nets, antitrust laws, and environmental regulations prevent market excesses.
#### Case Studies and Models - Yugoslavia’s Experiment (1950s–1980s): - Practiced "worker self-management" in a market framework. Initially successful (high growth, reduced inequality), but later collapsed due to debt, ethnic tensions, and inefficiencies. - Lessons: Worker control alone isn’t sufficient without macroeconomic stability, democratic institutions, and checks on bureaucracy.
- Modern Examples: - Mondragon, Spain: Thrives in manufacturing, finance, and education, balancing competition with solidarity (e.g., wage ratios capped at 6:1). - Kerala, India: A mix of cooperatives, public sector, and private firms in a regulated market, achieving high human development indicators.
- Theoretical Models: - David Schweickart’s "Economic Democracy": Combines worker cooperatives, public control of investment (via a capital assets tax), and markets. Profits fund public goods and new cooperatives. - Richard Wolff’s "Workers’ Self-Directed Enterprises": Similar to Schweickart but emphasizes workplace democracy over state intervention.
BY IWW
Warning: Undefined variable $i in /var/www/group-telegram/post.php on line 260
"And that set off kind of a battle royale for control of the platform that Durov eventually lost," said Nathalie Maréchal of the Washington advocacy group Ranking Digital Rights. If you initiate a Secret Chat, however, then these communications are end-to-end encrypted and are tied to the device you are using. That means it’s less convenient to access them across multiple platforms, but you are at far less risk of snooping. Back in the day, Secret Chats received some praise from the EFF, but the fact that its standard system isn’t as secure earned it some criticism. If you’re looking for something that is considered more reliable by privacy advocates, then Signal is the EFF’s preferred platform, although that too is not without some caveats. Telegram boasts 500 million users, who share information individually and in groups in relative security. But Telegram's use as a one-way broadcast channel — which followers can join but not reply to — means content from inauthentic accounts can easily reach large, captive and eager audiences. What distinguishes the app from competitors is its use of what's known as channels: Public or private feeds of photos and videos that can be set up by one person or an organization. The channels have become popular with on-the-ground journalists, aid workers and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who broadcasts on a Telegram channel. The channels can be followed by an unlimited number of people. Unlike Facebook, Twitter and other popular social networks, there is no advertising on Telegram and the flow of information is not driven by an algorithm.
from nl
