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
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) had carried out a similar exercise in 2017 in a matter related to circulation of messages through WhatsApp. The perpetrators use various names to carry out the investment scams. They may also impersonate or clone licensed capital market intermediaries by using the names, logos, credentials, websites and other details of the legitimate entities to promote the illegal schemes. Pavel Durov, a billionaire who embraces an all-black wardrobe and is often compared to the character Neo from "the Matrix," funds Telegram through his personal wealth and debt financing. And despite being one of the world's most popular tech companies, Telegram reportedly has only about 30 employees who defer to Durov for most major decisions about the platform. Meanwhile, a completely redesigned attachment menu appears when sending multiple photos or vides. Users can tap "X selected" (X being the number of items) at the top of the panel to preview how the album will look in the chat when it's sent, as well as rearrange or remove selected media. The company maintains that it cannot act against individual or group chats, which are “private amongst their participants,” but it will respond to requests in relation to sticker sets, channels and bots which are publicly available. During the invasion of Ukraine, Pavel Durov has wrestled with this issue a lot more prominently than he has before. Channels like Donbass Insider and Bellum Acta, as reported by Foreign Policy, started pumping out pro-Russian propaganda as the invasion began. So much so that the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council issued a statement labeling which accounts are Russian-backed. Ukrainian officials, in potential violation of the Geneva Convention, have shared imagery of dead and captured Russian soldiers on the platform.
from us
