If worker owned firms are more productive and successful than capitalist owned firms, why aren't they the most dominant form of business in the economy? Don't give me that corporatism excuse.
If worker owned firms were really better and provided the lowest price then they would easily dominate walmart and shit like that.
Why can't they get their prices low enough to compete with real capitalist firms?
Why is left-anarchism such a fucking joke?
Other urls found in this thread:
cooperativedifference.coop
ica.coop
twitter.com
They are becoming dominant.
no they're not
LOL
Literally nobody uses worker owned firms
they fall flat on their ass all the time without state support
So you see an infographic with sources and just say the opposite is true because that fits your world view better?
>So you see an infographic
Nobody cares about some gay propaganda infographic.
>5% at best better wages in economies with low competition
literally nothing
Do you have an argument that isn't an infographic?
Stop bitching if you can't deal with facts.
>hurrr I have no argument
what facts?
You saved some tl;dr infographics from facebook.
Answer the question, if worker owned firms are so great why aren't they completely dominating capitalist own firms today?
and don't give me that "muh state" bullshit because it's not that hard to start a worker owned firm and if they were actually that great just a few of them would easily be able to destroy capitalist firms in the same industry
but they don't
because they're INEFFICIENT
You have no argument.
Because cooperation between workers is more difficult than having a fewer owners.
In Finland co-op is the largest insurance company for example. Growing share of economy is run by a co-op aroun the world.
Democracy is more efficient than monarchy, but it took a while for democracy to replace monarchy.
This is the source for the image:
cooperativedifference.coop
Get it? I'm not an-cap, I'm social democrat.
Provide examples of
>worker owned firms
I see none today. Best we can manage is companies where workers own shares and startups.
If worker-owned firms are really as bad as you say, why are the corporations spending untold amounts of money lobbying bigger and bigger market barriers? Why are they weaponising SJWs to use against startups?
>I see none today.
Of course you don't.
You don't because they're not efficient and can not compete with capitalist firms.
>In Finland
Nobody cares about a non-country with a low population.
>co-op is the largest insurance company for example.
Wow, nice cherry picking.
I asked why they aren't the DOMINANT firm in the economy.
Why aren't they completely destroying companies like walmart and mcdonalds?
WHY CAN'T THEY PROVIDE LOW PRICES TO CONSUMERS?
>Democracy is more efficient than monarchy
democracy is extremely overrated
>took a while
It took a while for POLITICAL reasons.
In our modern economy it's perfectly easy for anyone to start a co-op, if they were truly better for consumers they would take the market share of capitalist firms.
They don't.
lol you're so mad
>I'm social democrat.
Yes I know, you're an angry authoritarian waste of life.
>In our modern economy it's perfectly easy for anyone to start a co-op, if they were truly better for consumers they would take the market share of capitalist firms.
Using your same logic, how could they grow faster than the rest of economy if they weren't more efficient?
Such huge economic changes don't happen instantly.
It's like saying in the 60's, if supermarkets are so much more efficient than smaller local shops, why haven't supermarkets replaced smaller local shops, while ignoring that they are slowly replacing them.
First of all.
>that picture
What does that have to do with anything.
Luxury goods for the super rich are an extremely small part of the economy. The working class mainly makes products and services for working class people, not yachts for the super rich.
>Such huge economic changes don't happen instantly.
Who said they would happen instantly.
We've had firms like this for fucking decades yet they're an incredibly small part of the economy.
They're basically useless.
Left-anarchism, an ideology that foolishly wants to use authoritarianism to ban capitalist firms and make worker owned firms dominate is horrible for workers and is fucking cancer.
>It's like saying in the 60's, if supermarkets are so much more efficient than smaller local shops
But they weren't back then.
>while ignoring that they are slowly replacing them.
But worker owned firms are NOT doing that to capitalist firms in today's economy at all.
>But worker owned firms are NOT doing that to capitalist firms in today's economy at all.
Yes they are. They have higher growth and growing share of jobs are in co-ops.
>We've had firms like this for fucking decades yet they're an incredibly small part of the economy.
>But they weren't back then.
They were, that's why they replaced the local shops. Their share of sales and jobs grew, slowly replacing the local shops. Same thing with co-operatives.
You are saying why it hasn't happened yet, which is a stupid question.
I don't want to ban capitalist firms, that is certainly not part of co-operative movement.
>We've had firms like this for fucking decades yet they're an incredibly small part of the economy.
" the turnover of the largest 300 co-operatives has grown by 11.6% to reach 2.2 trillion USD in 2012, equivalent to the GDP of Brazil. "
"In the United States, 30,000 co-operatives provide more than 2 million jobs."
ica.coop
Source for the picture:
cooperativedifference.coop
>Yes they are.
No they're not.
there's almost no co-ops in my country and our people have higher living standards than your shithole of a nation with super high taxes
>They were, that's why they replaced the local shops.
not really far back then, somewhat recently they became more competitive
when they happened they took off and destroyed the smaller firms
co-ops will NEVER EVER EVER do that
Even in some of the most free market nations on earth they are very minimal
Your firms are fucking laughable.
Nobody wants to pay higher prices for bullshit.
You CAN'T COMPETE.
4% of the jobs in Canada are in co-ops. Their share of jobs and economy is growing. If that's not being more competitive, then you don't know what that term means.
Supermarkets didn't replace local shops instantly, and neither do co-ops replace other firms. They will never achieve 100%, but it's indisputable that they are growing share of economy.
why is mondragon peaked at the third best auto part maker in europe, and not the first best?
thats because they are voluntary co ops
anarcho capitalism wins again
>4%
If worker owned co-operatives are better, then they should be on average more successful, and able to pump out cheaper, better products than their capitalist alternatives.
If they do not achieve these results, then there's no point to them.
>If worker owned co-operatives are better, then they should be on average more successful, and able to pump out cheaper, better products than their capitalist alternatives.
THIS
I should have named this pic "user starts up a worker's co-op.jpg"
lel