Do sufficiently large businesses/corporations essentially become equivalent to governments or government agencies...

Do sufficiently large businesses/corporations essentially become equivalent to governments or government agencies? Should they be treated or regulated as such? Should, say, the services Google or Amazon provide be considered as public goods and treated as infrastructure?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Any business that grows beyond the level of a “family business” should automatically become a worker owned co-operative.

It's way worse than that. They take over governments. And regulations is partly what makes them impossible to compete with.

Yes, but no because of the tendency toward regulatory capture. Instead the state should use whatever policy tools are available to favor worker-governed cooperatives that provide the same services as dictatorially governed companies. See also

No. Why should the people elect a state that prevents them from buying the products of an evil corporation when they could simply stop buying those products themselves?

It's like a malignant act of double self castration.

>using "subway franchises" twice

so you want to pay $60 for can of coke

Go fuck yourself you socialist piece of shit

>so you want to pay $60 for can of coke

What makes you think that a worker owned co-op would result in $60 Cokes?

>Go fuck yourself you socialist piece of shit

Governments have always regulated businesses, the issue is why should a parasitical minority of Wall Street fat cats control the government to insure they take the lions share of the profits of your labor?

Worker owned co-operatives would actually result in LESS government intrusion in our lives, as we'd be managing our own affairs as we see fit.

Fuck no. Private property is PRIVATE. Once the government touches something it turns to shit.

>Why should the people elect a state that prevents them from buying the products of an evil corporation when they could simply stop buying those products themselves?

The State wouldn’t be preventing anyone from buying anything, the only difference would be who owns and controls the companies making the products you’re buying.

There are instances in which you can't stop buying or using the goods/services a company produces, like natural monopolies, public goods, etc.

>There are instances in which you can't stop buying or using the goods/services a company produces

Indeed, try to stop using corporate gasoline for instance.

There are literally no other sources of gas, except for that sold by massive multinational oil companies controlled by a handful of major shareholders, over whom we have zero control.

If they were equivalent to governments, how could they be regulated? Wouldn't they just issue their own regulations, laws, etc?

Workers can't do two things at the same time
>work
>manage the business

Those roles have to be effectively separated.

Well they start developing their own inner regulating processes. Do you know much about the structure of large companies, how they strive for standardization, need to create rules for governance, etc.?

Yes and yes.

Yes, look at Facebook and Twitter. If they can censor enough free speech does it matter that they are private? Railroads were once private, radio is now regulated. Being new technology shouldn't exempt businesses from ethical obligations that a public organization would have to follow.

Wrong question, if corporations were equal to government in power, government would be ineffective against them. The fact that corporations can be regulated by the State negates the premise that they are equal in power to the State.

>Workers can't do two things at the same time
>>work
>>manage the business
>Those roles have to be effectively separated.

Nonsense, there are worker-owned co-ops all over the place, which either manage themselves or hire management.

There is no fundamental reason why management should own the company, especially when that company grows to a size where the owners aren’t really “controlling” anything anymore, as the sales are handled by a sales dept. made up of employees, the materials are bought by a purchasing dept. run by employees, the products are made by employees, the accounting is done by employees, the toilets are cleaned by employees, etc.

You're under no obligation to use these platforms, nor are they under any obligation to allow you to use their platforms for any purpose you see fit.

You seem to have missed the point of what I was asking, I'm not saying that they equal or supersede the state in total power or size or anything, but rather that they come to homogenize to becoming similar to the state or certain state apparatuses in their structure, how they operate, etc. A very large business has many similarities with a government organization which a smaller business does not.

I don't use them but at some point if enough speech is affected I think it merits regulation in the name of freedom. Some have to use them for work so it isn't really a choice.

>all of the place
And most of them are abject failures. Name any Fortune 500 companies that are worker owned co-ops.

I can't wait for the real Genom. I want the future to be a 1980s dystopia of out of control cyborgs, hot girls in powered armor, and music video aesthetics.

>Wrong question, if corporations were equal to government in power, government would be ineffective against them.

Government IS ineffective against corporations.

You can't get elected without corporate money and once you take their money, they own you and you work for their benefit.

Then your statement makes little sense. What does the internal structure of a company have to do with whether or not external regulation is needed?

What? What are you on about? I didn't say whether the internal structure of a company had anything to do with whether or not it needed to be regulated externally. Companies do need to be externally regulated of course.

>Do sufficiently large businesses/corporations essentially become equivalent to governments or government agencies? Should they be treated or regulated as such?
No.

>Should, say, the services Google or Amazon provide be considered as public goods and treated as infrastructure?
Maybe. Things like search engines and social networks naturally form monopolies, because part of the value of the product is the simple fact that so many people use it. To take a real world example, look at youtube. They nearly on the user-generated online video thing. Sometimes they censor people and do various other shitty stuff. BUT if someone wanted to leave to an objectively better platform, their audience would be smaller. The monopoly itself is the product- the equilibrium state of the market for things like social networks is towards monopoly. So the benefits of capitalism no longer exist.

However, I am still somewhat wary to just hand social networks over to government control, since that kind of sounds like a recipe for cyber dystopia.

> And most of them are abject failures.

Not at all, or else they wouldn’t exist.

> Name any Fortune 500 companies that are worker owned co-ops.

Why are you using Wall Street’s definition of success?

The goal of a company should sustainable employment for the people producing the wealth, not massive short-term profits for a handful of do-nothing majority share holders.

A lot of people would say that those do-nothing shareholders are the ones who produce the wealth. Without initial capital and funding nothing would go anywhere.

It's only a monopoly literally because the users make it one. There is literally no 'natural' monopolistic aspect to internet or social media like there would be to railroads which take up actual physical space and resources.

It's easy enough to start another social media site if the existing ones become dickish enough. If Facebook got really bad, it turns into MySpace in a few years.

Companies can exist for a while before running out of capital or getting crushed by competitors.

>The goal of a company should be producing the best possible product for the people at the lowest cost, not employing dindu muffins for diversity quotas.

Fixed that for you.

>using Wall Street’s definition of success

The ability to generate consistent revenue to sustain business operations over a long period of time is a pretty good definition.

>A lot of people would say that those do-nothing shareholders are the ones who produce the wealth.

I'll agree that a lot of people have been duped into believing that.

>Without initial capital and funding nothing would go anywhere.

The capital isn't their money, it's YOUR money that corporations and Wall Street banks use to fund their activity and then reap the profit for themselves, while you get a fraction of a measly fraction of a percent interest on your piddly checking account as you live hand-to-mouth while busting your ass all day at work.

This.

"Big Chief Sugar" was my stripper handle.

But the users are incentivized to keep making it a monopoly, because the monopoly itself is the product. If I have a choice between a shitty social network that everyone is on and a really well-designed social network that nobody is on, I pick the former over the latter every time, because at the former has more people for me to socially network with.

>employing dindu muffins for diversity quotas.

A worker owned co-op is FAR more strict about who works there, as everybody is equally in the same boat, thus slackers get quickly kicked to the curb, as they're literally taking food out of your mouth.

>The ability to generate consistent revenue to sustain business operations over a long period of time is a pretty good definition.

A worker owned co-op is _more likely_ to sustain business operations over a long period, as it's in the employee-owners self interest to make it last and provide a good job for their kids and succeeding generations.

Focusing on the wrong part of my statement, but that's okay.

I don't have any issues with different internal business structures as long as it's not mandated. If we had a more competitive labor market, what you're suggesting would likely be more attractive to workers.

you guys always crying about kikes and gov corruption sstill believe that "corporation" is better than worker-owned co-op. BAKA. da' fuck's wrong with you cucks. get fucking woke the fuck up already. sheesh. stop choking on corp-cock.

>as long as it's not mandated
Yet you're perfectly fine with them being mandated right now.

I'm "perfectly fine" with what being mandated, exactly?

>Focusing on the wrong part of my statement, but that's okay.

Ok then;

> The goal of a company should be producing the best possible product for the people at the lowest cost

There is no reason why a worker owned co-op can't make the best possible product for the lowest cost, as you remove the false (and ultimately impossible) goal of continually increasing profits by any means necessary for a handful of parasitical Wall Street share holders.

>everyone gets a fridge that never breaks
>everyone gets a car that never breaks
>everyone gets a house that never crumbles
NOW WHAT ECONOMY IS DEAD AND THE END OF THE WORLD IS UPON US

> I'm "perfectly fine" with what being mandated, exactly?

(different user here) Economics is a legal matter and the current laws are that the “owner” retains complete control of the company and gets 100% of the profits forever, simply because he scribbled out incorporation papers and had lawyers filed them with the State.

There is no reason why the law shouldn’t be that once a company reaches a certain size, the owner is pensioned off (or stays on as an employee) and the company becomes a worker owned co-operative.

A monopoly has never been created without government assistance/interference and therefore is not something to use against Capitalism in an argument. Capitalism is moral and righteous. BTFO commies

>Capitalism is moral and righteous.

Capitalism is simply neo-feudalism, with capital replacing land.

Why are you so eager to bend over for the corporate Lord of the Manor?

THIS. fucking this, you corp-shill just got BTFO. done and done.

You're right, there isn't. A co-op works fine on the small-scale. Now what if you decided to start a company that designs and manufactures electronic widgets? How do you reconcile the janitor, an EE, and someone from marketing having a discussion about the best course of action for the company? Co-ops work fine for grocery stores and the like, but you can't extend that model very far before you start running into severe issues that directly affect operations.

Have you tried to start a business, though? You need capital to do that, and I can tell you that most do not have such funds sitting in an account. Investors want a return on their investment, usually as a shareholder. So how are you going to get capital to begin without introducing your parasites?

Private ownership applies only to a certain point then? What's your arbitrary turning point, then? If the labor market was more competitive, things like co-ops and profit sharing would spring up everywhere as employers suck labor dick to keep their businesses afloat.

I'm less concerned about regulation and more concerned with how to make labor valuable again.

>name calling
>an argument
welcome new friend! Fortunately the donald is back up so you can return!

Then plant trees for a hundred years and go back to making stuff when it breaks again. It'll be interesting by then. An urbal/rural cycling program can keep the culture relatively homogenous as long as certain rules apply to the city that don't apply to the country and vice-versa. Everyone knows their purpose, all gets done, and yet there is enough variety of life choices for people to not get shitty with each other.

I played drums for Big Chief Sugar back in the 90's

rural and urban government systems are not allowed to interact ever though. A separate committee is formed for each pressing concern. Wars will solve any other issue.

> You're right, there isn't. A co-op works fine on the small-scale.

It works for both small and large companies.

> Now what if you decided to start a company that designs and manufactures electronic widgets? How do you reconcile the janitor, an EE, and someone from marketing having a discussion about the best course of action for the company?

A worker owned co-op still has management that is hired by the workers but major decisions are decided by all the worker-owners, for instance; should the company invest in new machinery or buy another building and expand operations, etc.

The SAME decisions an owner or majority share holders would make, can just as easily be made by the workers themselves and unlike owners/share holders, the workers aren’t going to decide to cash out with their golden parachute and fuck everybody else…

> Have you tried to start a business, though? You need capital to do that, and I can tell you that most do not have such funds sitting in an account.

The capital the corporations are using to fund their operations is YOUR money that the banks lend them, then the corporation and bank take all the profit and you get a 2% return on your measly savings account.

cont.

> Private ownership applies only to a certain point then? What's your arbitrary turning point, then?

It would depend on the type of business. A landscaping company for example, would remain a “family business” even once it gets fairly large, as the reality is that any stoner can run a lawn mower or weed whacker and shouldn’t get a say in the operations of the company.

But on the other hand, a family business machine shop that grows to become a full-on design and manufacturing company with a say hundred employees, would become a worker owned co-op at that point, as the owners are not “running” the company anymore, the employees are.

> If the labor market was more competitive, things like co-ops and profit sharing would spring up everywhere as employers suck labor dick to keep their businesses afloat.

Worker owned co-operatives are resisted by conventional corporations at every turn, as it’s in Wall Street’s interest to maintain the status quo.

Look at some of the stupid shit people here are saying, most people have no idea with a worker co-op is and think it’s some kinda Communist plot, where Obama and Hillary are going to take over everything (ignoring that Obama and Hillary are stooges of Wall Street).

>How do you reconcile the janitor, an EE, and someone from marketing having a discussion about the best course of action for the company?
Compared to the owner's retarded son doing it?

>A worker owned co-op still has management that is hired by the workers but major decisions are decided by all the worker-owners
So then what stops the co-op from listing "employees" as "non-employee contractors" that do not count in the collective?

>The SAME decisions an owner or majority share holders would make
This is just incorrect as a generalization. Entrepreneurs and workers are cut from different cloth, nevermind the vast potential for educational and character differences.

>The capital the corporations are using to fund their operations is YOUR money that the banks lend them
Maybe if I've worked long enough to save and put that kind of money into the economy, which at my age, I have not.

>It would depend on the type of business.
Smells like a shiny, new massive bureaucracy with a hefty taxpayer price-tag to me.

>Worker owned co-operatives are resisted by conventional corporations at every turn, as it’s in Wall Street’s interest to maintain the status quo.
Do you mean that corporations hate my local co-op or they fight against mandating they must themselves be one?

>Look at some of the stupid shit people here are saying
This is Sup Forums, lol.

> it’s some kinda Communist plot
If you're going to legally mandate it, maybe it is.

>Not all owner's sons run companies, and not all owner's sons are retarded.

Again, I think the greater problem is the depreciating value of labor, not the corporate business model. Look at what wages and salaries were like in the mid-20th century in our country, and look at what they are now. The system hasn't changed. Other things have.

>>How do you reconcile the janitor, an EE, and someone from marketing having a discussion about the best course of action for the company?
>Compared to the owner's retarded son doing it?

Indeed, I used to work for a good sized manufacturing company (100+ people) that was founded after WWII (we were still running a boring mill that had “Property U.S. Navy” I.D. plate on the side) but by the time the third generation grew up, they were all dumbass and losers who didn’t give a fuck about anything except their monthly dividend check, so the last member of the 2nd generation (in his 70s at the time) ended up selling the joint to a mega corporation, who only wanted the intellectual property and turned the screws on us once they took over and I ended up quitting.

> > A worker owned co-op still has management that is hired by the workers but major decisions are decided by all the worker-owners
> So then what stops the co-op from listing "employees" as "non-employee contractors" that do not count in the collective?

The law, just as the law now insures the owners/majority share holders have complete control and get all the profits of your labor.

> > The SAME decisions an owner or majority share holders would make
> This is just incorrect as a generalization. Entrepreneurs and workers are cut from different cloth, nevermind the vast potential for educational and character differences.

You’re buying the Wall Street propaganda. Why do you think YOU are incapable of making the decisions that affect YOUR work and life? Why do you think some corporate boss will get you a better deal? Because he ain’t, let me tell you…

> > The capital the corporations are using to fund their operations is YOUR money that the banks lend them
> Maybe if I've worked long enough to save and put that kind of money into the economy, which at my age, I have not.

Good luck, son and I mean it, I hope you are successful.

Because I’m 49 years old and have busted my ass since I got out of high school working as “shop rat” and eventually a machinist (a reasonably decent occupation) and honestly don’t have shit to show for it and will be working until I drop and that’s the situation for 99% of Americans.

cont.

> > It would depend on the type of business.
> Smells like a shiny, new massive bureaucracy with a hefty taxpayer price-tag to me.

As opposed to the smelly rusty corporate-government bureaucracy we have now, that’s fucking you over every day and will continue fucking over your children and grandchildren?

> > Worker owned co-operatives are resisted by conventional corporations at every turn, as it’s in Wall Street’s interest to maintain the status quo.
> Do you mean that corporations hate my local co-op or they fight against mandating they must themselves be one?

Are you denying that the system favors a conventional corporate structure?

> > Look at some of the stupid shit people here are saying
> This is Sup Forums, lol.

True but the point still stands; most people have no idea what a worker owned co-op is.

> > it’s some kinda Communist plot
> If you're going to legally mandate it, maybe it is.

Why isn’t the current legally mandated system a Communist plot?

A tiny minority of corporate apparatchiks call all the shots and live like kings, while the rest of us bust our ass all day erry for a pittance, until we literally drop dead at work.

My argument against the principle of socialism.

a federal government is a regulated safe sandbox for countries to do their thing, or else they'd go out of control. Therefore a federation of states is better than a rogue country.

a democracy is a regulated safe sandbox for dictatorships to do their thing, or else they'd go out of control. Therefore a federation of corporations is better than a rogue dictatorship.

Federalism isn't a form of government, it's merely a modular frame for states.

Democracy isnt a form of government, it's merely a modular frame for governments.

Socialism just adds another layer of abstraction. The socialism "module" in the frame of democracy is yet another democratic frame to filled by a dictatorship/capitalism/the next derivative.

Why have these messy layers of abstraction go on and on more when a capitalist module within a democratic frame is enough?

To simplify,

Capitalism is just a dictatorship neutered by democracy.

Socialism is just a dictatorship neutered by co-ops neutered by democracy.

Probably should have posted this right off the bat;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

>the law
Fair enough.

>Why do you think YOU are incapable of making the decisions that affect YOUR work and life?
I don't, which is why I've been busting my ass and sacrificing for over a year creating a service that might turn into a successful business. Which is what I referred to in my observation about entrepreneurs and workers--most people would not do what I've been doing for the mere _chance_ at success at the risk of failure.

>Good luck, son and I mean it, I hope you are successful.
I appreciate that, user.

>will be working until I drop and that’s the situation for 99% of Americans.
I watched both of my parents ruin their lives working, with me and my sibling and their little property as the only things produced. I owe it to them to do my best in life.

>corporate-government bureaucracy
I agree that the unholy marriage between the two needs to end.

>Are you denying that the system favors a conventional corporate structure?
No. There's no pressure from the labor market or the government to change it, though.

>most people have no idea what a worker owned co-op is
Make an infographic to post here. user's love that shit.

>Why isn’t the current legally mandated system a Communist plot?
In a way, it is. It's the government interfering with a capitalistic model. But there has never been "free capitalism" on a large scale before, and certainly without modern corporations, so it's speculative if it's better or worse.

It pains me to read what you've posted here regarding your career experiences. The corporations and the governments of the world have done much to devalue labor in this country and its effects are grossly apparent given the trends of the past several decades.

I see no problem with co-ops at all. I still remain unconvinced that mandating them is correct, or even feasible. If American workers didn't have to compete with the entirety of the world for jobs, much of the corporate fuckery would evaporate overnight.

When the corporation owns everything, it's hard to not buy from them.

Name a succesful co-op that is fits the defination of a co-op. Also I hate to break this to a lot of people but alot of workers already own shares in the companies they work for.

> > Why do you think YOU are incapable of making the decisions that affect YOUR work and life?
> I don't, which is why I've been busting my ass and sacrificing for over a year creating a service that might turn into a successful business. Which is what I referred to in my observation about entrepreneurs and workers--most people would not do what I've been doing for the mere _chance_ at success at the risk of failure.

And you should have that chance but the reality is once (if) you make it big and have [X number] of employees working for you, you are no longer “running” the business anymore, they are and should have control of that business.

>corporate-government bureaucracy
I agree that the unholy marriage between the two needs to end.

>Are you denying that the system favors a conventional corporate structure?
No. There's no pressure from the labor market or the government to change it, though.

I hate to say it, but I personally think the above will never change without bloodshed.

I feel this last presidential election made it clear beyond a doubt that the People cannot work within the system as it is, as the deck is stack against us.

cont.

> > most people have no idea what a worker owned co-op is
> Make an infographic to post here. user's love that shit.

Well, I did post a link to Wikipedia for what it’s worth.

> > Why isn’t the current legally mandated system a Communist plot?
> In a way, it is. It's the government interfering with a capitalistic model. But there has never been "free capitalism" on a large scale before, and certainly without modern corporations, so it's speculative if it's better or worse.

It’s not the government doing the interfering, they’re a wholly owned enforcement division of the Global Corporate Nobility
and get their marching orders from Wall Street.

> I see no problem with co-ops at all. I still remain unconvinced that mandating them is correct, or even feasible.

Forcing the issue is the only way it’ll ever happen.

> If American workers didn't have to compete with the entirety of the world for jobs, much of the corporate fuckery would evaporate overnight.

Worker owned co-ops ARE and would still be in competition, they’d still exist within a free market system (which we in fact do NOT have with the current corporate model) where success is rewarded and incompetence results in them going out of business, their assets being bought up and the employees dispersing to other co-op or private companies.

>If you don't fork over billions a year to a 12 shareholders every year for doing nothing but sitting on their ass then everything will somehow cost more

Are (((Capitalists))) really this dumb?

That, and people have been convinced that if they keep their nose to the grindstone and bust their ass, someday somehow they may be a Big Shot.

But the fact is that only a vanishingly small number actually achieve that, with the vast majority living out their lives as wage slaves.