"If worker co-ops were forced then the welfare of everyone would increase drastically."

"If worker co-ops were forced then the welfare of everyone would increase drastically."

Attached: images (2) (13).jpg (555x553, 22.47K)

Who?

Co ops are just for cs majors that failed to get a job at faang

The economy is controlled with debt not capital.

Fuck you Vaush for giving mutualists a bad name.

I swear to fucking god, I want to pull on his race traitor hoodie and drag him across the floor.

Attached: proudhonpepe.png (384x360, 195.68K)

euphemism for slavery.
china did that and it caused starvation
private ownership gives people an incentive to work hard and produce more because more work translates into more profit for themselves.

another internet armchair political scientist with the standard glasses, beard, pony tail and 5'3 stature.

you're low IQ and nobody cares

You're low IQ and a nigger.
THIS IS YOU!

Attached: 4c91e1381e6bd457ba3f433df73a8de36cbfbc0567f0ed85f0b6e3735a6dc31c.png (852x731, 34.97K)

Reminder that this guy promotes co ops but absolutely refuses to ever work in one.

Well, his enterprise isn't exactly big enough to be a cooperative.

He could create a multi-channel network with other channels and make that a cooperative of a sort.

Vaush is really good at pretending he is smart. When someone well read on Marx or syndicalism actually challenges him though he falls apart. Even a Hoppean libertarian that doesn't act like a lmao smoke weed sperg can easily dismantle Vaush. It's not hard for him to post debates he wins on Youtube but ignore the ones he loses since they're all on twitch.

>isn't exactly big enough to be a cooperative.
cooperatives can be as small as your mom and your dad sucking dicks for money. why are you posting? you don't know shit. stop talking retard

Free markets allow for coops. Absolutely nothing stops them except for people's unwillingness to take on the same financial risk as their employers took on themselves.

There are large cooperatives that exist to this day that were not propped up by government. There's a major power utility near where I live that was bought out by the workers. They're doing a good job at producing power and set up massive winter light displays through the park and town and makes the whole area cozy as fuck.

No force is needed to establish coops, syndicates, etc. It just takes people with the balls and brains of capitalists.

What the hell is that? Tumor? Cyst?

Attached: SmartSelect_20200923-120520.jpg (483x533, 91.92K)

Anyone who had to do an assigment at school or collage knows how co ops work.

There is one person that does all the work, one person that reads some stuff from a print out, and one person standing in the back trying to not to look too stupid(and failing most of the time).

At work it is the same. If we have to load a truck, there is always going to be one asshole who is in the toilet for 45 min(only durning the loading) or "time for me food break", who then pulls asshat shit talk like "damn that was hard work loading that truck", when all they did was look at you covering it up for transport.

ear cyst

>not big enough to be co-op
That's not an argument you fucking retarded nigger

the jew chip

that my friend is a limpoma.

Co-ops have shown to increase productivity and worker engagement with their activities. Aside from that it comes with more equally distributed surplus value to each laborer. Syndicalism, in its nationalist form is absolutely based and only ZOG brainlets who support modern day capitalism will seethe about it. The most important thing is that while you instate a syndicalist state you also ensure that.

1) pedos and faggots are removed
2) women are encouraged to take maternal roles and discouraged from working
3) foreigners are not welcomed and kicked out

Attached: primo de rivera.jpg (195x259, 8.72K)

Imagine how this affects anyone with a small company. Day and nights thinks, please God don't let me be too sucessful or I will grow to big, and then the state is going to force me to give up parts of my self build company to other people.

heck this doesn't even work for family groups. Just look what happens when parents die, have 2-3 kids(with kids of their own) and some land. You can be the most loving siblings, but the gloves are off(specialy as far as spouses goes) to what you think who should be getting how much. specialy when your siblings from the city drive up after not visiting for 30 years, and claim they have the right to 2/3 of the land lefts by your parents.

Well what Vaush is arguing for is forced cooperative engagement, I assume every level of production would be a cooperative entity.

I''m not agreeing with him at all I'm just pointing out that his ideas are so bad he won't adopt them himself.

That's not necessarily a fault unique with coops. It's actually a universal issue found in almost all workplaces and has been found in social species, AI and robotic efficiency simulations, and even in cell organizations in multicellular organisms. It's often referred to as "social loafing", but the phenomenon is scientifically known as the Ringelmann effect.

The mathematics behind the Ringelmann effect basically say that work difficulty, work load, work space, worker skill level and engagement all combine to determine the optimal worker capacity utilization. Most workers are not inherently lazy, usually, but rather the workers perceive no utility in their engagement and thus do not contribute.

Management schools are trying to tackle this issue, but it's very hard to study in dynamic situations. A few useful techniques have been found though. ie, provide decent workspace so a worker can efficiently work, use accountability systems, use employee peer reviews, etc

Just start a co-op now in the free market. If it provides a better alternative for workers and people like the idea then good for them.
Nothing is stopping people from just working in co-ops now. Both co-opretive ventures and traditional le ebil capitalist businesses can both exist and potentially do well in the free market

Forcing co-ops top down (and presumably imprisoning/killing those who run their businesses the way they want) instead of going for the bottom up start co-ops and out compete traditional businesses in the domain of worker satisfaction is bound to cause problems and stifle personal freedom.
>dude totalitarian government will make the world a better place if they agree with me
fuck off

Co-ops don't scale. When you are 2-6 persons it might be fine, but when you go up to just 20 it gets bad. The reason is that when you get bigger, you need more specialized people for different tasks to stay competitive, which is why things like administration begins to be a more than one man job. The problem you get into is that you need to find the people with the right skills, which for some disciplines is easy, but for others it's rare. Supply and demand takes over and you need to pay higher wages for those who are in short supply to not to loose them to other companies.

The living meme

>his ideas are so bad he won't adopt them himself.
I wonder if all the cognitive dissonance will give him a brain tumor. Can't be healthy to live a lie

His tranny room mate does the video editing for him. So I guess he pays his workers in blowjobs? Is that how worker coops work?

Cooperatives are infamous for being highly inefficient and having a tendency to collapse. Those that survive often self-cannibalize their previous syndicate ideals. Mondragon corporation, for example, now highers employees and refuses to give them a vote, the older employees are now basically stock holders. Mondragon is slowly becoming a coop in name only, and will soon be indistinguishable from a traditional corporation.

This isn't to say cooperatives can't work, there's plenty that do, and one large one right next to me. There's many economic reasons why people prefer the traditional firm hierarchy.

Most workers do not want to take on the same financial risk and work loads as their employers. Many employees also have a different time preference for when they get paid. Employees get paid immediately and consistently. Employers get paid after much longer periods and they have inconsistent profits (sometimes making nothing at all).

Past instances of syndicalism failed because of massive economic illiteracy. In Spain, their syndicalist movement failed because they often do not save and invest adequate capital, preferring to consume capital for pay. They try to control consumers by jacking up prices and they force large portions of workers onto welfare so that they can create scarcity of supply. Cooperatives also rarely invent new businesses because they generally do not accumulate capital to create new businesses. It's a highly stagnant economic system.

By people you mean psycopaths, politicians, sycophants ect. Thats what capitalism does, distracts them with bullshit instead of playing with armies.

Also add Georgism and you have the perfect society.

He wouldn't be half wrong if we could keep shit skins out

Many large cooperatives exist with thousands of employees, and operate multinationally. Mondragon corporation was a decent example of this before they started refusing to give new workers voting rights, thus turning themselves into a traditional corporation very slowly.

the workers will vote for no niggers