Again, we could discuss the choice of words ("outgrow" or not - as I have even indicated as early on as in the OP), but that's not very interesting. What is interesting in my opinion is to discuss alternatives to the current organization of the economy. Whether we deem proposed alternatives to be just another form of capitalism or something so different it should be given another name is really a side issue. Now on the 15,000 € investment, what it shows is that there is no one-stop solution. It requires other structures to come and fill in the gaps. For example, we could imagine that governments, instead of giving giant tax cuts to the rich and corporations could finance next to 0 interest rates loans for people who want to join a coop, with appropriate safeguards to avoid fraud of course.chownah wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:37 amHere is an article that gives some answers to my questions:
It says that (among other things...go read it) to become a member requires a 15,000 euro investment in the company. What this means is that to become a member you must make a captial investment in the corporation. This sound quite a bit like capitalism what with the capital investment required to be part of the decision making process which is very much like the usual corporate structure where a purchase of a share (or more) of stock is required to be part of the decision making process. I think that this means that while mondragon seems to me to be a vast improvement on the usual corporate structure it has not outgrown capitalism (see the topic title).
but its just that going out to joust against capitalism per se seems to me like a waste of energy
If one is going to look for an alternative, it will only be because one finds the current system unsatisfying. If the latter fact is not yet established, it still remains the first step in a discussion of alternatives to capitalist organization of business as we know it today. Interestingly, nearly all those who have defended capitalism earlier in this discussion and dismissed criticism towards it have now gone silent on the topic of worker coops. I think it kind of hints that I have a point here.
It requires both. The very reason why coops are not getting more support is precisely because there is not enough criticism of capitalism opening onto a search for alternatives, followed by the realization that such alternatives already exist.which could be used to try to improve on what mondragon has done or at least to duplicate it.....and.....to duplicate what they have done requires an acceptance of some of the principles of capitalism rather than some rhetorical railing against it.
No one will bring about better corporate ethics without pointing out first the failings of the current corporate ethics. Dr Wolff (author of the article) does both, because if you go to step 2 without properly addressing step 1 first, there is no reason why step 2 should be even considered worth listening to. The proper way in my opinion is therefore:It is alot easier to complain about capitalism than it is to work everyday to bring about a better corporate ethic.
1. point out the problems of capitalism as we know it
2. offer a solution that already exists and just needs more support
Dr Wolff has been doing this for decades, and his message has been getting a lot more attention in the last 5 years, mostly thanks to alternative media and people who think outside of the tired narratives