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
"Someone posing as a Ukrainian citizen just joins the chat and starts spreading misinformation, or gathers data, like the location of shelters," Tsekhanovska said, noting how false messages have urged Ukrainians to turn off their phones at a specific time of night, citing cybersafety. The gold standard of encryption, known as end-to-end encryption, where only the sender and person who receives the message are able to see it, is available on Telegram only when the Secret Chat function is enabled. Voice and video calls are also completely encrypted. The next bit isn’t clear, but Durov reportedly claimed that his resignation, dated March 21st, was an April Fools’ prank. TechCrunch implies that it was a matter of principle, but it’s hard to be clear on the wheres, whos and whys. Similarly, on April 17th, the Moscow Times quoted Durov as saying that he quit the company after being pressured to reveal account details about Ukrainians protesting the then-president Viktor Yanukovych. "We're seeing really dramatic moves, and it's all really tied to Ukraine right now, and in a secondary way, in terms of interest rates," Octavio Marenzi, CEO of Opimas, told Yahoo Finance Live on Thursday. "This war in Ukraine is going to give the Fed the ammunition, the cover that it needs, to not raise interest rates too quickly. And I think Jay Powell is a very tepid sort of inflation fighter and he's not going to do as much as he needs to do to get that under control. And this seems like an excuse to kick the can further down the road still and not do too much too soon." In the United States, Telegram's lower public profile has helped it mostly avoid high level scrutiny from Congress, but it has not gone unnoticed.
from ru
