One issue that arises with starting a socialist firms is acquiring initial investing. This is probably because co-ops want to maximize income (wages), not profits. They pursue the interests of their members rather than investors and may sometimes opt to increase wages instead of profits. Capitalist firms on the other hand are explicitly investor owned so investor interests will take priority.
This does not explain e.g. why we do not have more software development co-ops. The costs of starting a new software company are not that high, and a group of experienced software developers should have decent savings. They already own the means of production, i.e. their brains and notebooks, and they can rent the other necessary resources from Amazon. Thanks to remote work, they do not even have to live in the same city.
By the way, you seem to suggest that a capitalist investor is able to prioritize long-term wealth over immediate consumption, but the co-op employees are not. Not even when all the benefits of working at a co-op are at stake, and they know that if the co-op fails, they will have to return to their previous open spaces and agile meetings. Why is that so?
I think the biggest issue in software development is the winner-takes-all position with many internet businesses. For the business to survive, you have to take the whole market, which means you need to have lots of capital to expand quickly, which means you need venture capital. It’s the same problem that self-funded startups have. People generally agree that self-funded startups are better to work at, but they can’t grow quite as fast as VC-funded startups and lose the race. But that doesn’t apply outside of the software sphere (which is why VC primarily focuses on software startups).
Beyond that, they’re just not that well known as an option in the US, and all of the narrative is about venture capital based startups, so founders haven’t considered co-ops as an option. Despite that I am aware of a few software co-ops (primarily consultancies, since they don’t have the large capital needs).
This does not explain e.g. why we do not have more software development co-ops. The costs of starting a new software company are not that high, and a group of experienced software developers should have decent savings. They already own the means of production, i.e. their brains and notebooks, and they can rent the other necessary resources from Amazon. Thanks to remote work, they do not even have to live in the same city.
By the way, you seem to suggest that a capitalist investor is able to prioritize long-term wealth over immediate consumption, but the co-op employees are not. Not even when all the benefits of working at a co-op are at stake, and they know that if the co-op fails, they will have to return to their previous open spaces and agile meetings. Why is that so?
I think the biggest issue in software development is the winner-takes-all position with many internet businesses. For the business to survive, you have to take the whole market, which means you need to have lots of capital to expand quickly, which means you need venture capital. It’s the same problem that self-funded startups have. People generally agree that self-funded startups are better to work at, but they can’t grow quite as fast as VC-funded startups and lose the race. But that doesn’t apply outside of the software sphere (which is why VC primarily focuses on software startups).
Beyond that, they’re just not that well known as an option in the US, and all of the narrative is about venture capital based startups, so founders haven’t considered co-ops as an option. Despite that I am aware of a few software co-ops (primarily consultancies, since they don’t have the large capital needs).