Tell me why cooperative ownership of the means of production is a bad idea

Tell me why cooperative ownership of the means of production is a bad idea.

The workers are stupid and can't be trusted to do anything by themselves so they need someone who is paid 300x more than them to control them from afar.

It is not.
See d.d., SA, AG, Inc.

Work or you die isn't really cooperation

The efficient and effective use of resources relies on prices in order to do cost accounting.

>cooperative ownership
Yeah yeah, comrade, you will own something. Now pop into gulag.

Because a cooperative doesn't know how to operate the means of production sufficiently.

>he said before retreating back to his homeboard and bitching about "hurrr durr! Why does Sup Forums hate communism?

Fuck off, you absent minded professor

Because humans are unable to cooperate. Marxism is dumb as fuck because one of its basic tenets is that Man by nature is good, when thats not true at all. Man by nature aint necessarily evil, but we by nature are selfish. So Marxism at its core already fails in that regard

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Imagine a car where every seat had a steering wheel. Division of labor is important, as is division of authority.

Marxism is all about "give giant government to us, and then we will build communism (gulag) and work for you (us)"

>one elite owning everything
>cooperation

What makes you think that the HR lady or the mail clerk is going to know a damn thing about how to run a high end engineering/manufacturing company?

Who invests the money to start up the business? What about investing in upgrades?

The reason you hire specific people for specific roles is because they have specific knowledge and skill sets.

OP, if you're so in love with the idea, tell me what the advantages of this system are instead.

At the end of the day, the question you need to answer is "Does it work?".

You have multiple examples of it not working.

All day doing forced labor, all night in the gulag. Fuck where do I sign up?

do it then faggot
see if it works this time

Because threads about socialism inevitably boil down to USSR, let's clear something first:
USSR was a state capitalist system, where the party bureaucracy managed all the exploitation in the place of private businessmen. It didn't democratize the nature of labour in any real way.

Significantly, Lenin himself acknowledged this - State Capitalism was only the first step in bringing about his idea of a socialist society:

>The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New
Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is
deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state
capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have
bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the
bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full
confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding
as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single
important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our
economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.

Talking about socialism without cooperative/worker ownership of labour is basically an oxymoron.

>co-operative ownership
>John the machine operator must operate the machine for the collective good of Ahmed the Terrorist, Trayvon the Cotton picker and Chad the stoner
>He gets no profit from his work and the normal wage for his services is split between everyone else

Capitalism enabled the surplus for such a co-operative ownership to exist, therefore co-operative ownership is redundant, you only need Capitalism.

Of course Im all for co-opeartive ownership. The co-operative ownership of your mum and your girlfriend, your wife as well if you get one.

To add, Stalin really fucked up socialist theory in more ways than people assume. He's one of the main reasons that "Socialism = more state power and nationalization of industry" is an accepted formula in the public consciousness.

The idea of Socialism in one country, let alone socialism where the condition of workers doesn't change in a fundamental way, is utterly contrary to Marxist thought.

>Marxism is dumb as fuck because one of its basic tenets is that Man by nature is good, when thats not true at all.
That's not a tenet of Marxism at all, nice of you to reveal that you don't know shit about it. Ethical essentialism is precisely contrary to a Marxist conception.

>dictatorship of proletariat
>state capitalism
>before we can transform to "real" communism we have to enslave you all
>promise
USSR was designed after Marx' blueprint. He was a fraud.

They are called "corporations". Stockholders each own a piece of the company. Nothing wrong with them, they allow groups of people to pool their money in order to create companies which require more capitalization than can be provided by any single investor.

It's not, production for exchange is cancerous.

Who is going to administer that cooperation, you dumb goy?

Tell me why globalist agenda is bad

>20th century fuckups are the final proof that socialism will never work
>every recession and financial crisis is completely neutral in the evaluation of global capitalism.

Nice double standards. The funny thing is that you're not even aware of the ideology you spout.

>What makes you think that the HR lady or the mail clerk is going to know a damn thing about how to run a high end engineering/manufacturing company?
What makes you think that the owner's retarded son will?

>Socialism works
Socialism has never worked because it does not foster productivity or innovation.

The case in point is just how backwards the Soviet Union was in technology by the 1980s. In particular in the field of computer game development.

>Corporatism shows that capitalism doesn't work!

>Nepotism shows that capitalism doesn't work!

It's pic related, applied worldwide.

>>Nepotism shows that capitalism doesn't work!
I'm just saying that it's silly to list downsides that exist in literally all systems ever.

Tell me why having a few jewish comissars running an entire country is good

It doesn't work because its entirely facade.
The government owns everything, and the government consists only of a select group.
Telling the goyim that they own anything is nothing but an inside joke for the Bolsheviks who came up with the idea.

Yes because USSR was literally the only socialist system in existence in the entire history of humanity, it totally didn't influence movements all over the globe with vastly different (and positive) results depending on the circumstances.

Because nobody likes cucks.

>positive
There were no such influences

>imperialist powers break up successful socialist systems
>it never worked

Because no one will give you their means of production unless you kill them or threaten to kill them.

Then you can get into the economics...