How does socialism work?

[bluethread]

There appear to be only four options regarding governmental action:

1. Let the consequences of personal actions follow without interference.

3. Dictate behaviors by legislation

2. Provide goods and services regardless of personal actions.

4. Withhold goods and services based on personal behaviors.

Given that socialism dictates that the paramount consideration in legislation is what is best for society as a whole, and advocates usually argue for it based on compassion for the individual. How does that work? Which combination or combinations of the options above provide the best outcomes for society as a whole, while showing compassion for the individual?

[Wootah]

K, so you admit that you don't have any formal education in economics and yet you think you are qualified to pontificate on how the economy should be organized and managed?

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
Hi Winepusher,

This forum encourages people to pontificate in a civil fashion and share what they believe, even if they are wrong, and I would encourage you to not use that line of reply in debating. Especially if a forum member is wrong, it is up to each of us to explain the alternate views in a way that might even make them feel comfortable to realise they are wrong.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm surprised you would say this and wonder what evidence you base this claim on. I was labouring under the impression cooperatives were no less prone to failure that standard business models, and here I find a piece by Jessica Gordon Nembrand citing research from the World Council of Credit Unions study in Williams 2007 that says co-operative are less prone to failure than standard business models. Do you have any evidence to back up you claim or are you just hoping cooperatives are badly run?

The fact that labor managed firms are not prevalent in the market is due to the fact that they are out competed by traditional businesses.

You shift ground from "badly run" to "out competed". It is true that cooperatives have ethical business policies and emphasise social responsibility that makes them less competitive in some respects. Most have an ecological policy for instance that means they make business choices less likely to pollute the environment. There are fair trade polices, humans rights, animal welfare etcetera. Such concerns do not make them badly run. The lower failure rate of cooperative business - which you have not acknowledged - gives evidence that the cooperative maybe more risk averse. With the emphasis is on building communities the co-operative model needs like minded individuals to come together in cooperation. But the number one reason is I suggest a lack of education and knowledge about the cooperative movement and a lack of appreciation of its ethos.

Unless you subscribe to some conspiracy where you believe that capitalists and the current economic system somehow persecutes and suppresses labor managed firms from popping up

That would be an exaggeration. But in a world dominated by accrued wealth that wealth can't invest in cooperatives because cooperatives do not have non working shareholders.

To be true I have no evidence that banks or venture capital is less inclined to invest in cooperatives.[Edit: the paper I added a link to below by Professor Erik Olsen suggests problems with accessing funding in the US it seems]. Thus wealth may loan to cooperatives, but I also see no evidence they are geared to encourage this kind of business model - unless they are a cooperative bank. So in the main it has to come from groups of like minded socially aware people coming together. Not impossible but just less likely than a few people forming a standard business partnership. The number of bourgeoisie willing to act like Spedan lewis with a sufficiently strong sense of socialism that motivates them to hand the company over to the workers is few I submit. Societies with weak socialistic histories that emphasise individualism are even less likely to think of a cooperative as the preferred business model. Failure to educate on the subject and nudging a population away from thinking socialistically is a negative pressure on the formation of cooperatives. This does not have to be a conspiracy. Consumerism militates against a social ethos. Aversion to socialistic thinking is built into the DNA of capitalism. The Koch brothers are a well known example of wealth reinvested to influence the political process through political funding of groups, think tanks, academic bursaries etcetera, but there is not any obvious equivalent benefactor promoting the cooperative movement.

You seem to be under-informed regarding cooperatives.Do they not have this subject on the curriculum of your business school? If not is this not a part answer to why cooperatives are not more pervasive in the US? If they do, are the classes well attended?

In ALL business schools, ranging from Harvard to Stanford to Wharton and to London, students are taught the basics of financial management. Things like capital budgeting and capital structure decisions, along with marketing, risk analysis, etc. If you want to successfully run a business, you will need to have a comprehensive understanding of ALL of these topics from finance.

You do not appear to answer the question. Just to be clear - I take it there are no courses or modules on the cooperative business model at your school. So honest question - how far would you have to travel to find the first business school that offers a course? If the answer is a long way away why do you wonder why cooperatives are not pervasive. It is possible to conclude you are a product of a system that ignores the model and gets on with promoting standard business practice and ideology. Do I misrepresent your education? Or is it you have looked at the evidence and find cooperatives inadequate. If so you are not sharing your evidence.

Sadly, most low skilled workers do NOT possess such an understanding, and many low skilled workers often do not attend school to learn about these topics. So how can you expect a worker with no training in corporate finance and marketing to successfully manage a business?

Well there is a side argument about social inequality and education here, but to answer your question directly I expect a cooperative to answer your question using the kinds of business practices employed by cooperative style businesses all over the world including Mondragon and the John Lewis Partnership. In both these examples there is a professional management class steering the business. In the case of Mondragon the management is voted for by the workers on a regular basis. And clearly that strategy works for Mondragon. The point is that the management is enthusiastic about the cooperative ethos. In the case of John Lewis which is more hierarchical - team leaders cast a vote for their departments and often the team leaders follow direction from above not below. The management of the John Lewis report to a board who oversee the company and act as trustees of the partnership ethos. The John lewis model is far less democratic than the Mondragon model.

You realise Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and Leon Walrus was a school administrator and not a professional economist.

First, you do realize that Adam Smith is considered to be the FIRST economist and that prior to Adam Smith there was NO coherent and systemic study of the distribution of goods and services.

Yes I realised that. But you seemed to be getting all hot under the collar about lack of formal qualifications. Everyone starts somewhere. This is a debate forum. No qualifications are necessary. If they were then if Adam Smith were reincarnated his view would be discounted.

Second, it appears that you didn't know who Leon Walras was and proceeded to google search his name or type it into wikipedia which is where you got the following:

Yes you are quite right. Well done. As I admitted in the correcting post that followed immediately. It was indeed a blunder. I concede you the point.

I found this paper by A professor Erik Olsen University of Missouri. As to the scarcity of cooperatives in the US Olsen leans towards it being a problem of creation not their survival.

http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone ... -olsen.pdf

[WinePusher]

The fact that labor managed firms are not prevalent in the market is due to the fact that they are out competed by traditional businesses.

You shift ground from "badly run" to "out competed".

No. The reason WHY labor managed firms are out competed by traditionally managed firms is that they are badly run. The reason why they're are badly run is that they expect low skilled workers to manage complicated issues like marketing, financial management, etc.

It is true that cooperatives have ethical business policies and emphasise social responsibility that makes them less competitive in some respects.

Actually, nearly EVERY major corporation out there has a substantial philanthropic program, including Walmart.

Most have an ecological policy for instance that means they make business choices less likely to pollute the environment. There are fair trade polices, humans rights, animal welfare etcetera.

Did I say that any of the things make worker cooperatives badly run? No, what I very clearly said is that you cannot expect typical, working class people to understand complicated financial topics. THIS is the reason why labor managed firms tend to lose out to traditionally managed firms. Because traditionally managed firms have MBA's managing and controlling the business.

In ALL business schools, ranging from Harvard to Stanford to Wharton and to London, students are taught the basics of financial management. Things like capital budgeting and capital structure decisions, along with marketing, risk analysis, etc. If you want to successfully run a business, you will need to have a comprehensive understanding of ALL of these topics from finance.

You do not appear to answer the question.

No, I answered your question very quite nicely.

Just to be clear - I take it there are no courses or modules on the cooperative business model at your school.

No, there also aren't any courses on the sole proprietorship model, or the partnership model, or the corporate model. So what makes you think that a top business school would want to create specific courses on a business model like the failed worker cooperative? Like I said, what business schools teach are the basics of finance, accounting, marketing, etc. THESE are the skills a person needs to run a successful business. So your question is moot.

So honest question - how far would you have to travel to find the first business school that offers a course? If the answer is a long way away why do you wonder why cooperatives are not pervasive.

I'll explain one more time. Business schools do teach the basics of finance, accounting and marketing, along with some economics. If you want to successful start a business, whether it be a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation or a worker cooperative, you will need to understand financial management and marketing. If you don't understand these topics, your business is likely to fail. If the workers that own a worker cooperative want their business to succeed, they will need to attend a business school and take corporate finance 101, marketing 101, accounting 101, economics 101, etc.

It is possible to conclude you are a product of a system that ignores the model and gets on with promoting standard business practice and ideology. Do I misrepresent your education?

I don't go to business school and I don't have an MBA. I study graduate economics (which at this point seems to be nothing more than a branch of mathematics), not business management. Here's the way I think about it. Economics is to finance what physics is to engineering, what biology is to medicine and what linguistics is to learning a language.

However, here's one thing I can tell you. I have taken several finance classes on interest theory, financial derivatives, etc and they were extremely challenging. To be an executive at a business, interest theory and financial derivatives are only a few of several advanced topics that a person must know. You cannot reasonably expect all the workers at McDonalds to run the company without knowledge of these topics, and you also cannot reasonably expect them to learn and master these topics.

Or is it you have looked at the evidence and find cooperatives inadequate. If so you are not sharing your evidence.

The evidence is that most industrialized societies have businesses where the control and management of the business is left to trained, educated executives and managers. There is NOTHING stopping worker cooperatives from rising in the economy, other than the fact that it's an untenable business model.

Sadly, most low skilled workers do NOT possess such an understanding, and many low skilled workers often do not attend school to learn about these topics. So how can you expect a worker with no training in corporate finance and marketing to successfully manage a business?

Well there is a side argument about social inequality and education here, but to answer your question directly I expect a cooperative to answer your question using the kinds of business practices employed by cooperative style businesses all over the world including Mondragon and the John Lewis Partnership.

Never heard of them. When I've never heard of something, I don't just go and do a quick google search about it, I just refrain from commenting. I'll take you at your word that these companies are successful labor managed businesses. That's the beauty of capitalism, ANY type of business can come into existence due to economic freedom.

Yes I realised that. But you seemed to be getting all hot under the collar about lack of formal qualifications.

When it comes to Robert Reich and other's who support Bernie Sanders. Also, it worth pointing out the inconsistency of those who get all hot under the collar when creationists cite "scientists" with questionable credentials, then turn around and cite non-economists to support their economic ideas. Similarly, it's also worth pointing out the inconsistency of those who get all hot under the collar when creationists cite disreputable sources like AiG and the Discovery institute, and then turn around and cite equally disreputable sources like bad news about christianity.com.

Also, please note that Bernie Sander's economic platform was utterly debunked by LIBERAL economists, including Paul Krugman and 4 other Chairs of the White House council of economic advisers.

[bluethread]

So honest question - how far would you have to travel to find the first business school that offers a course? If the answer is a long way away why do you wonder why cooperatives are not pervasive.

I'll explain one more time. Business schools do teach the basics of finance, accounting and marketing, along with some economics. If you want to successful start a business, whether it be a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation or a worker cooperative, you will need to understand financial management and marketing. If you don't understand these topics, your business is likely to fail. If the workers that own a worker cooperative want their business to succeed, they will need to attend a business school and take corporate finance 101, marketing 101, accounting 101, economics 101, etc.

Business models are more at the level of high school FBLA or DECA projects. They tend to be basic structures that insure neither success nor failure, but derive their degree of success from the nature of the assets employed and the nature of the economic system in which they are used. So the success of any given business model is more a matter of best fit than inherent advantage. My experience with the cooperative model did have the advantage of closing the loop between shareholder and customer, so management could not play one against the other. However, as you have pointed out they had the disadvantage being limited to the expertise of the smartest farmer.

[Furrowed Brow]

The fact that labor managed firms are not prevalent in the market is due to the fact that they are out competed by traditional businesses.

You shift ground from "badly run" to "out competed".

No. The reason WHY labor managed firms are out competed by traditionally managed firms is that they are badly run. The reason why they're are badly run is that they expect low skilled workers to manage complicated issues like marketing, financial management, etc.

I have given actual examples of coops in action in this thread and linked to research that says the opposite of what you are saying. You are providing no evidence for your claims.

It is true that cooperatives have ethical business policies and emphasise social responsibility that makes them less competitive in some respects.

Actually, nearly EVERY major corporation out there has a substantial philanthropic program, including Walmart.

Philanthrophic programs is not a deep commitment at the DNA level of the business. And how many times have ethical policies been exposed as bogus. Half of the UK retail sector went ducking for cover when the Bangladesh factory collapsed. John Pilger amongst others has done sterling work exposing the hypocrisy of various brand names and their use of sweat shops, etcetera.

Did I say that any of the things make worker cooperatives badly run? No, what I very clearly said is that you cannot expect typical, working class people to understand complicated financial topics. THIS is the reason why labor managed firms tend to lose out to traditionally managed firms. Because traditionally managed firms have MBA's managing and controlling the business.

But you are ignoring the evidence to the contrary regarding failure rates. And whilst you maintain there is lack of expertise of working class people this also applies to just about every mom and pop businesses. You seems to have a prejudiced view of who is starting co-ops and the skill base they have access to.

No, there also aren't any courses on the sole proprietorship model, or the partnership model, or the corporate model.

So your are not given training in the standard practice of setting up and starting a business? Or how different management structures are good or bad for a business? Okay maybe this is more a human resource question that business school.

I'll explain one more time.

Thank you.

Business schools do teach the basics of finance, accounting and marketing, along with some economics. If you want to successful start a business, whether it be a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation or a worker cooperative, you will need to understand financial management and marketing. If you don't understand these topics, your business is likely to fail. If the workers that own a worker cooperative want their business to succeed, they will need to attend a business school and take corporate finance 101, marketing 101, accounting 101, economics 101, etc.

I found a t least one program lead by the CEO of WACE in which about 50 institutions are involved.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/troyonink/2 ... cc0d877ffb

This appears to be a more recent effort. The point to programs like this is that there are specific skills and experiences that help with running a co-operative.

You cannot reasonably expect all the workers at McDonalds to run the company without knowledge of these topics, and you also cannot reasonably expect them to learn and master these topics.

I think sufficient examples have been given in this thread to militate against this kind of mischaracterisation of a co-opeartive and pursuing the idea that co-ops are poorly run or fail more often because of low expertise levels. It is not true. Examples have been given, research cited that says the opposite.

Or is it you have looked at the evidence and find cooperatives inadequate. If so you are not sharing your evidence.

The evidence is that most industrialized societies have businesses where the control and management of the business is left to trained, educated executives and managers. There is NOTHING stopping worker cooperatives from rising in the economy, other than the fact that it's an untenable business model.

You know that is not evidence don't you and is just a rewording of the same dogmatic assertion that also manages to caricature the co-operative model. Once gain: co-operatives do not fail anymore often than standard business models. They often and usually have expertise or can access it - and they certainly have no less level of expertise than a mom and pop business model.

I expect a cooperative to answer your question using the kinds of business practices employed by cooperative style businesses all over the world including Mondragon and the John Lewis Partnership.

Never heard of them. When I've never heard of something, I don't just go and do a quick google search about it, I just refrain from commenting.

Well there are a couple of films linked in this thread that I guess you did not view.

Here they are again

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
I suggest to watch to at last disabuse yourself of the notion co-operatives and workers partnerships do not have professional management.
If you have any Brit friends or acquaintances ask them about John Lewis. It is one of the major UK retailers with one of the best reputations. And over the last few years their Christmas advert has becomes something of an institution and an event moment. This was last christmas.

[youtube][/youtube]

I'll take you at your word that these companies are successful labor managed businesses. That's the beauty of capitalism, ANY type of business can come into existence due to economic freedom.

The paper I liked by Erik Olsen suggest there is a drag on creation of co-operatives. The problem is not sufficient numbers of co-operatives are being created.

Also cooperatives like Mondragon and worker partnerships like John Lewis are not capitalist business models because the capital is owned by the worker not a capitalist class. the business models introduce various degrees of democracy into the business model. But maybe you are working with a different definition of capitalism.

[Furrowed Brow]

Business models are more at the level of high school FBLA or DECA projects. They tend to be basic structures that insure neither success nor failure, but derive their degree of success from the nature of the assets employed and the nature of the economic system in which they are used. So the success of any given business model is more a matter of best fit than inherent advantage. My experience with the cooperative model did have the advantage of closing the loop between shareholder and customer, so management could not play one against the other. However, as you have pointed out they had the disadvantage being limited to the expertise of the smartest farmer.

Not sure if the "smartest farmer" analogy works. I have no doubt there are some very smart economists working in the banking industry and yet the banking industry collapsed and needed a bail out. Greed trumps intelligence sometimes. The criminality of HSBC is now infamous, yet limited fines means their criminality remains highly lucrative. The car industry needed a bail out in the US too, and now it seems BMW have been fiddling the data and maybe many more manufacturers. From experience the smartest guy in the firm is not always listened to if he has bad news and his news means published profits take a dive.

So my point is, yes - business need acuity and expertise - but they also need to be sufficiently flexible to allow that intelligence to influence the decision making process for the better. As Co-operatives seem to fail at least no more often than standard business models, and mature co-operatives seem to be more sustainable than standard models according to the Erik Olsen paper, getting intelligent people into the right positions is not a particular problem for co-operatives.

The analogy also assumes all the workers are of the same stripe and reflect the same basic skill base, with maybe some individual being smarter than others. (I think this is essentially WinePusher's picture of things). Maybe this is true of small start ups. But as the business grows there is plenty of evidence cooperatives employ a wide range of skills. They really do have professional accountants, professional marketers, professional human resource etcetera. The difference between the co-operative and the standard model is that co-ops tend to maintain a ratio between highest paid and lowest paid. The fact there is ratio and everyone is not just paid the same is a reflection of the different skills, qualifications and responsibilities.

I agree the point about best fit. Some industries are best run by centrally planned government or government organisations. Here I am particularly thinking of the UK railway system which was once nationalised, and the National Health Service as original conceived and constructed. But these models - and central planning - are proven bad ways to run agriculture, and there is little sign they are technically innovative. Yet the internet was invented within government funded projects. And to be honest some people are just not temperamentally suited to work within a co-operative model - after watching the recent movie I'd say Steve Jobs would not thrive in that kind of environment.

[Furrowed Brow]

Sure, there's lazy no good loafers of the free.

In my experience there are just as many loafers in work as out. There are always people that don't pull their weight. However that is not my experience of the welfare system in the UK. Most people I met were and are making sensible decision in their own self interest....decision any of us might make given the same set of circumstances. They are not pre-dispositioned to be "loafers" and they are not loafing. The vast majority are low paid workers or part time workers also bringing up families. The UK press loves perpetuating the image of feckless fathers with eight kids who smokes and drinks and is demanding a bigger socially provided house. Except of course the number of people with eight kids is vanishingly small. The system is there for us all and I have made use of it myself.

SADLY...we live in a world that would have us working 100hrs a week if there were not laws against that kind of thing. We also live in a world that is unable to provide full employment for anything other than very short periods. In the West we have de-industrialised which has left cities and countries not needed . And the latest headline in the UK is that the cost of childcare for two children is now more than the wage of the average working mother. The cost of a home is now around 12x average wage. The majority of folk fall within what has been termed the Precariat.

These folks are burdensome, if we gotta insult 'em to tell it, and we don't wanna just insult folks, but we've got an obligation to be honest at least in what we think. I think if we look to why such is the case, it sometimes is they've given up. For right or wrong, they've simply lost faith in either their place in society, or society's place in theirs.

But there is no place. Western economies now no longer need about 10% of their populations. We are all serving each other coffee and fries. If some of these folk were struck by lightening and had a personality change what option do they have? Student debt? 80hrs a week to make a decent living?

However it is going to be interesting how the next 10-20 years go given the latest advances in automation. Driverless lorries have been given the go ahead on UK roads. Driverless busses are coming. There are already driverless trains. Warehousing is going to be automated. Japan are the first to trial automated fast food. Robotic cooking systems are being developed. Interesting times.

[WinePusher]

I have given actual examples of coops in action in this thread and linked to research that says the opposite of what you are saying. You are providing no evidence for your claims.

For the last time, if labor managed firms were as efficient and as productive and as great as you make them out to be then they should be out-competing traditionally managed firms in the market place. However, when we look at the economy the exact opposite is true. Traditionally managed firms out-compete labor managed firms.

But go ahead and start a worker coop on your own Furrowed Brow. No one is stopping you. Under capitalism ANYBODY is free to start any type of business they want, including a worker coop.

Philanthrophic programs is not a deep commitment at the DNA level of the business. And how many times have ethical policies been exposed as bogus. Half of the UK retail sector went ducking for cover when the Bangladesh factory collapsed. John Pilger amongst others has done sterling work exposing the hypocrisy of various brand names and their use of sweat shops, etcetera.

This seems to be completely irrelevant. I said that practically all major corporations, including Walmart, have a philanthropic outreach program. You have nothing to counter this fact, so you resort irrelevant digressions on sweat shops.

Did I say that any of the things make worker cooperatives badly run? No, what I very clearly said is that you cannot expect typical, working class people to understand complicated financial topics. THIS is the reason why labor managed firms tend to lose out to traditionally managed firms. Because traditionally managed firms have MBA's managing and controlling the business.

But you are ignoring the evidence to the contrary regarding failure rates. And whilst you maintain there is lack of expertise of working class people this also applies to just about every mom and pop businesses. You seems to have a prejudiced view of who is starting co-ops and the skill base they have access to.

I'm not ignoring the points you're bringing up. I said that I accept what you said about those two worker cooperatives (whatever their names were). But here are some things you should take into account:

1) A group of workers owning capital and managing a business is NOT socialism. The workers form a group of private individuals, and as such are really no different than a private group of shareholders.

2) Anybody is free to start their own worker coop. If you think that the economy should have more worker coops then go start your own. As of now, your posts really don't seem to have any direction to them. You go on and on bemoaning the fact that the economy doesn't have many worker coops, but you could actually do something to remedy this by starting your own worker coop.

3) Workers themselves may be unwilling to form a cooperative because they would be exposed to the risks that capitalists normally face. Workers are guaranteed a constant salary for the full term of their employment, however under a cooperative model the money workers earn will be variable. In a normal business, dividends are distributed to shareholders on a fairly irregular and erratic basis and the same would be true for workers if they owned the business.

But here's the most important point: you can go start your own worker coop right now. Under capitalism, you are free to start your own worker coop and NO ONE will try and stop you. This is how things are done in a capitalist economy. If you have a great business idea or model, go do something about it.

[WinePusher]

I have no doubt there are some very smart economists working in the banking industry and yet the banking industry collapsed and needed a bail out. Greed trumps intelligence sometimes.

I see, you think that the housing bubble and financial crisis were caused by greedy, evil bankers. This is a conspiracy commonly held by progressives, particular those who identify with the occupy wall street movement.

First, most economists do NOT go to wall street after attaining their PhD. Many of those traders and brokers you see on the floor of the stock exchange probably don't even have a masters in economics. They are business professionals and financiers whose knowledge of economics probably doesn't surpass undergraduate level micro and macro. Now, what economist DO is model the behavior of financial markets from the outside. And most of the models have been empirical success, ie: the capital asset pricing model, the efficient markets hypothesis, etc.

Second, you appear to have some profound misconceptions about the field of economics. Economists did NOT create any of the financial instruments that contributed the the 2008 crash, such as the credit default swap. These financial instruments were conceived by bankers and financiers who actually engage in banking. Again, economics is to finance and business what physics is to engineering. When an incompetent and perhaps evil engineer designs an inadequate bridge that ends up collapsing and killing several people, that is no ones fault other than the engineer. Don't you think it'd be rather ridiculous to indict the entire field of physics for the actions of an engineer?

[Furrowed Brow]

For the last time, if labor managed firms were as efficient and as productive and as great as you make them out to be…

Let’s be clear as to what I have said in this thread about co-operatives. I have put the same point across several different ways.

I was labouring under the impression cooperatives were no less prone to failure that standard business models,

The lower failure rate of cooperative business - which you have not acknowledged

But you are ignoring the evidence to the contrary regarding failure rates.

You continually fail to acknowledge or respond to the point regarding failure rates. A point I take to mean you either have no evidence to the contrary or you accept the basic statistical point.

…then they should be out-competing traditionally managed firms in the market place.

In the video for John Lewis you will see their sales per square ft are double their comparable competitors. That is out competing. However I am not arguing co-operatives are generally more competitive. Co-operative do indeed fail. But not at a rate greater than standard business models.

So much of what you are claiming about poor business skills and untenable models is not supported by the available evidence.

However, when we look at the economy the exact opposite is true. T

The reason co-operative do not dominate the market place is - as Erik Olsen’s paper points out - the low take up rate. The math is straight forward birth rate versus death rate problem. You’re good at at math so you will appreciate how this will skew a population. But you seem determined to ignore the point.

Traditionally managed firms out-compete labor managed firms.

The line of thinking that says the standard business model is chosen far more often means it is self evident it is more efficient/productive or more competitive is a non sequitur.

Under capitalism ANYBODY is free to start any type of business they want, including a worker coop.

You seem to be in denial to the cultural norms and expectations that give a bias to the standard model over the co-operative. You say you are being taught economic skills but admit little foreknowledge of the co-operatives business model, the names of major cooperative businesses, the management structures, the skill levels, the failure rates etcetera. If you are typical of your society and its education system, I would not expect a high start up rate for co-operatives.

It does not matter if the members of a population are free to do X if they have little knowledge of X, do not appreciate its ethos, and the cultural norms that nudge the population away from thinking in terms of X, then X is less likely to happen. And all this makes X rarer without X being less efficient, less productive or less competitive.

1) A group of workers owning capital and managing a business is NOT socialism.

No. Quite clearly it is a form of socialism, and it is not capitalism. Capitalism is based on private ownership. The co-operative is owned by its members and it is not a prerequisite they buy their membership.

The workers form a group of private individuals, and as such are really no different than a private group of shareholders.

Such a small difference between one form of socialism and capitalism then, yet the ethics, ideology, and the set of priorities are so very different. Are you seriously going to try and argue that worker ownership and worker directed businesses are not socialism.

2) Anybody is free to start their own worker coop. If you think that the economy should have more worker coops then go start your own. As of now, your posts really don't seem to have any direction to them.

You must keep missing my appeals for you to provide supporting evidence.

You go on and on bemoaning the fact that the economy doesn't have many worker coops, but you could actually do something to remedy this by starting your own worker coop.

I am pointing out society will be improved once co-operatives become the norm and that they are indeed a tenable business model. I have given examples and research on the matter. I note that we are a long way away from the ideal. I am also pointing out you have a limited notion of socialism. You seem to think socialism is equivalent to centralisation and miss the forms of socialism that are decentralised. The co-operative movement an actual example of what that means.

3) Workers themselves may be unwilling to form a cooperative because they would be exposed to the risks that capitalists normally face.

Yes. You make a fair point. Erik Olsen addresses the issue in his paper as one of the reasons for the low start up rate. The originator of the business risks more than someone who joins later, and as co-ops fail in their early years just as often as standard businesses there is certainly a risk. This would be a reason many might find the idea unattractive. But this is not a question of the a co-op being well run or badly run, efficiency, productivity or competitive. It is a problem of have lower numbers of people in the population that think socialistically and are aware of the the possibilities of the co-operative movement,

Workers are guaranteed a constant salary for the full term of their employment, however under a cooperative model the money workers earn will be variable. In a normal business, dividends are distributed to shareholders on a fairly irregular and erratic basis and the same would be true for workers if they owned the business.

Yes. This too is likely a drag on the start up of co-operatives. But again nothing to do with efficiency and productivity.

If you have a great business idea or model, go do something about it.

That is a complaint and possibly tu quote fallacy, and not an argument that supports your claim.