• trailing9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We simply talk about different things. Initial funding comes with different risks.

    I think established cooperatives should issue bonds for expansion.

    New cooperatives cannot issue bonds because nobody can judge the risk. They have to do a startup and sell shares in a company that owns the assets. But why should the founders limit themselves and do the opposite of Zuckerberg and give their influence away by just owning one vote in the participating cooperative?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, you’re not the first person to think of this. In practice, it turns out that it’s much easier for traditional companies to secure funding under the financial capitalist system. That’s the world we live in. Lots of people are trying to run cooperatives in all kinds of different ways. In some cases, like Mondragon, they do manage to grow big, but in general systemic pressures favor capitalist structure.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does difficulty matter? Any communist revolution will be more difficult than establishing a network of cooperatives. I believe that if there is a desire for Socialism, people will spend the time to establish cooperatives.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          A communist revolution would fundamentally restructure the way society operates which is a far more valuable goal than establishing a network of cooperatives which simply allows people lucky enough to work in these cooperatives to cope better with capitalist repression. These two things aren’t even remotely comparable, and abandoning freedom for all workers because it’s just too darn difficult is a cowardly position to take.

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What can you do with a communist revolution that you cannot do with cooperatives, apart from using violence?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              A communist revolution will abolish capitalist relations and allow creation of a government by the working class for its own benefit. If communist relations could be established via cooperatives without using violence then that would’ve happened already. People have tried doing this for over a century now with nothing to show for it. Meanwhile, communist revolutions have actually allowed workers to seize the means of production and turn them towards the benefit of the working masses. At this point I honestly can’t tell if you’re just trolling here.

              • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can’t tell because I am arguing.for a position that communists somehow want to ignore.

                For a communist revolution today the means of production are already necessary. Russia and China were possible because they were not industrialized.

                Are there capitalist relations within a cooperative? If not then why do you need a revolution when everything is already there?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Communist revolution has nothing to do with the level of industrialization. Cooperatives would not be taking over as the dominant form of labour organization as long as a country is ruled by the capital owning class because that wouldn’t be in the interest of the capital owning class. If capitalists were willing to give up their wealth and power without a struggle than revolutions wouldn’t be needed in the first place. It’s kind amazing that you don’t understand this basic fact.

                  • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What I meant with the lack of industrialization is that those revolutions could be fought with rifles. Today you need tanks and drones. Any revolution is interrupted by cutting global supply lines.

                    Cooperatives don’t have to be dominant. It could be that people prefer to work in classical hierarchies. There should just be so many cooperatives that whoever wants to live a socialist life can find a place to do so.

                    I indeed believe that revolution is not needed. There is no unified capital owning class. If you don’t change the political system and let them have their power, why should they waste resources on fighting cooperatives?