If socialist workplaces actually had all those benefits, they would already be taking over much of the economy. But we don’t see very many co-ops in the wild. My personal experience is that unions and co-ops tend to shift compensation to those with seniority and those involved with corporate politics instead of the skilled, productive, and competent ones. This then causes more time and energy to be spent on corporate politics and drives out the most productive employees.
You’re very much underestimating the effects of the top-performers at a business. The market has run the experiment of comparing socialist firms to capitalist ones for more than a century and every result has shown that socialist firms just aren’t competitive. Yes, there are benefits to the less productive employees. But the cost of driving out the productives has been shown to be higher in just about every sector. Hence why there aren’t very many socialist firms.
There’s countries where cooperative firms are doing fine. Most of Denmark’s supermarket chains are owned by the cooperative coop. Denmark’s largest dairy producer Arla is a cooperative too. Both operate in a free market and are out-competing privately owned competitors.
Both also resort to many of the same dirty tricks traditionally structured firms are pulling. Arla, for example, has done tremendous harm to the plant-based industry through aggressive lobbying. Structuring firms as cooperatives doesn’t magically make them aligned.
Worth noting explicitly, the Danish government is in general much more hands-on in the economy than in most other countries. I don’t know specifically how that manifests itself here, but I expect that’s an important part of it
Most firms don’t arise as the result of a group of people getting together with a blank slate as to how to.organise themselves; they start as one or two people who found a firm, which they continue to manage , hiring employees as they go along. Such firms are hierarchical because of the unequal status of the founders and hirelings, not because they are better … and cooperatives are scarce because of the lack of a route to.them.
My personal experience is that unions and co-ops tend to shift compensation to those with seniority and those involved with corporate politics instead of the skilled, productive, and competent ones. This then causes more time and energy to be spent on corporate politics and drives out the most productive employees.
I’ve seen this happen in capitalist corporations, too. In either case, the people who decide on compensation can increase their compensation with no regard to their own productivity. Indeed under capitalism, the owner ’s right to profit is based solely on ownership, not on any input.
I’ve already explained why socialists firms wouldn’t necessarily take over the economy even if they were productive in both the post and other comments.
If socialist workplaces actually had all those benefits, they would already be taking over much of the economy. But we don’t see very many co-ops in the wild. My personal experience is that unions and co-ops tend to shift compensation to those with seniority and those involved with corporate politics instead of the skilled, productive, and competent ones. This then causes more time and energy to be spent on corporate politics and drives out the most productive employees.
You’re very much underestimating the effects of the top-performers at a business. The market has run the experiment of comparing socialist firms to capitalist ones for more than a century and every result has shown that socialist firms just aren’t competitive. Yes, there are benefits to the less productive employees. But the cost of driving out the productives has been shown to be higher in just about every sector. Hence why there aren’t very many socialist firms.
There’s countries where cooperative firms are doing fine. Most of Denmark’s supermarket chains are owned by the cooperative coop. Denmark’s largest dairy producer Arla is a cooperative too. Both operate in a free market and are out-competing privately owned competitors.
Both also resort to many of the same dirty tricks traditionally structured firms are pulling. Arla, for example, has done tremendous harm to the plant-based industry through aggressive lobbying. Structuring firms as cooperatives doesn’t magically make them aligned.
Note that coop is a consumer cooperative not an employee cooperative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_co-operative
Worth noting explicitly, the Danish government is in general much more hands-on in the economy than in most other countries. I don’t know specifically how that manifests itself here, but I expect that’s an important part of it
Most firms don’t arise as the result of a group of people getting together with a blank slate as to how to.organise themselves; they start as one or two people who found a firm, which they continue to manage , hiring employees as they go along. Such firms are hierarchical because of the unequal status of the founders and hirelings, not because they are better … and cooperatives are scarce because of the lack of a route to.them.
I’ve seen this happen in capitalist corporations, too. In either case, the people who decide on compensation can increase their compensation with no regard to their own productivity. Indeed under capitalism, the owner ’s right to profit is based solely on ownership, not on any input.
I’ve already explained why socialists firms wouldn’t necessarily take over the economy even if they were productive in both the post and other comments.