Plants Used To Be Built In USA

[unadoptedlamp]

But setting aside all the political bullshit, dog whistles, and lies, all socialism means is that employees own the companies they work in.

There are a number of examples of this in Argentina, where worker's cooperatives have done very well.

They have a long history with this type of employment, contrary to a country like the United States. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the relative perceived "success" of both of those countries. Those issues are a lot more complex. As most issues are.

My wife does research with groups like this in Brazil, and what you say is absolutely correct. It is nothing more than your statement. The work satisfaction, engagement, mentality, quality of life, etc. are all quite high in these examples. It's not very comparable to a standard work agreement in places like North America or Europe. There are exceptions, but it is a great model.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of blowback to this from powerful interests. Obviously. They have a very strong interest in attaching labels like "communism" or "socialism" with all of their baggage that is propagated to discredit a model that impacts their wealth. If that is surprising to anyone, well, I don't know what to say. Maybe try reading about the issue in depth from highly informed sources rather than watching the news or getting a line from Facebook or Twitter. It's neither a "left" or "right" issue. It's just business... man. Some people want to make a shitload of money. The playbook for doing that is pretty well established. Empowering the workforce is not printed in that manual.

I worked in Russia for a joint venture. Many an old Communist informed me that "capitalism" (black marketeering), was the only reason the USSR lasted as long as it did. The Communist party leaders understood they couldn't deliver the goods and if the generaql population didn't get what they needed ...

The USSR had nothing to do with empowering workers. I'm sure you don't genuinely believe that. If by "capitalism", you mean outright theft and lies, then I agree with you. That's how it works.
I read an interesting book that touches a little on this called "Red Alert". In the United States, they have an act named after the lawyer in Russia it concerns called the Magnitsky Act. It's an interesting read to understand a little more about what those "capitalists" were up to.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Have a 20 acre farm-ette. Set a good amount of posts, usually dozen or so trees need cut up for fire wood or locust posts. Since I drive truck, the few days I have free, I like to use a good quality tool. Also good to know in most cases, the’ll perform well when I go to use them.

Mmmmm... that’s a great use. I tend to just fall ‘em and then chop ‘em. Some tools like that would come in handy, especially on the hills. I’m kinda a tool nerd, despite my cheap claw hammer, ha ha. And, I’ve never even seem lumber tools like those. Kewl beans!

 

[warren]

I'm sure you don't genuinely believe that.

You really have no idea what I "genuinely" believe. I defined "capitalism" in the SSR's as "black marketeering" as the term was used by my friends and co-workers in the venture. I worked there, mostly in a gulag region. I don't need to read someone's take on the conditions. I lived with those who suffered under it. Many of the old folk still revered Stalin, refusing to blame him for their misfortune. It was always a mistake or some such by one of his underlings. Their children had more prosaic (common) and true understanding of the past.

I "genuinely" would detest working in a co-operative. I want the salary I'm worth, not what the "other" guy earns. I 'genuinely" believe my efforts, labor, and the return I'd provide to my employer are worth more than the "other guy's", rightly or wrongly. I've worked in union shops and "genuinely" resented the fact that the lazy and inept made the same wages as the self-starters and more valuable employees. I'm one of those who believes a man should be paid what he's worth and should be allowed to earn as much or as little as he can. I value the individual over the masses.

My needs may generally be the same as the next guy. My wants and desires are, most likely greater. I want a chance to succeed or fail on my terms, not those set by others in a collective. So, I have no, absolutely no, desire to toil in a commune, collective, cooperative, or any other manifestation of a condition which places limits on abilities.

 

[captainsousie]

Now the only "plants" being made in the USA seem to be the kind that produce THC or CBD.

 

[unadoptedlamp]

You really have no idea what I "genuinely" believe

You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have said that.

From what you write, I think it is clear that we are understanding things with critical definitions that are diverging, or if not, completely disconnected. So much is politicized these days.

I guess I should state that I agree entirely with your views of communist Russia and the damage that inflicted. It should be obvious, but these days, so much is clouded and some people champion things like communism.

The book I recommended supports your view entirely. You would probably find it interesting, as I did. It mainly deals with the sell off of "state" assets to oligarchs who are now infamously rich. The people, as we know, got nothing, and still have nothing. It was a giant swindle of the working class, just after they were swindled by ideas of communism making things better for them. But, clearly, you know this on a personal level. That's very interesting and if we ever met, I'd like to hear your stories about your experience there. I have little doubt that you think I am a jackass, but if we had an exchange in person, I'm sure we could discuss things in great detail as friendly as could be. I'm certain of it.

About definitions. A worker's cooperative does not mean that you make the same as the lazy jackass next to you. I also find those situations unbearable. I've worked for my bread, without limit, and did well. I'd be supremely annoyed if there was a cap on that, as you are.

As you have personally toured Russia, I too have personally toured quite a few cooperatives in different countries. In the examples I know, workers are paid on their efforts. Which means that if you worked in such a place, you would be able to achieve all of the things you value. It is simply that the structure is different from what you typically find in a standard work environment.

The worker cooperatives I have seen have nothing to do with socialism, communism, or any other "ism". In fact, it is not political at all. It is just a different form of organizing labour that gives the workers more agency, and believe it or not, more ability to earn an income in relation to their own ability. I guess, unless you see yourself as the CEO of a company, collecting massive bonuses because you "worked" your way up to the top and make wonderful decisions that get you increasingly rich. In a worker's collective, the majority of the wealth earned by the company goes to the workers, and not top heavy CEO's, CFO's, or other "chief officers" of another name. That's not communism. Nor is it socialism. It's a different workplace structure that places a higher value on labour input. Which turns out to be pretty good for 99% of the people working there.

The overwhelming majority of the world is made up of "workers".

There are some different benefits that I won't go into, but your take on a worker's cooperative as being a throwback to something out of Russia is simply not correct. The ones I know of are all in free, democratic societies where people know a thing or two about oppression from recent history. They've lived under military rule or communism and threw off those shackles. In reorganizing, the developed a system that rewarded labour. Works pretty good.

I didn't mean to get your hackles up. We're just speaking of the same thing from two completely different sets of information.

 

[warren]

No, I didn't tour Russia. I lived and worked there. I was charged with forming a registered joint venture security company in the Russian Far East. The conditions at that time had us exporting everything from guns to pantyhose into Russia for resale, buying ful when cheap, hoarding it, then selling for operating funds, anything and everything to make the moneys required. The "Chechen Mafia" was a constant foe as they wanted into the same market. My partners were former police and a KGB employee or two. At times it was very much like the "old west" in America. Interesting times indeed.

I appreciate your defining some of the differences as words do, indeed, mean something. Doing so provided some clarity to your posts.

Rest assured, I never begrudge a man his beliefs, never. I try to refrain from labeling others. If I do, I keep it to myself.

 

[smokiespipesmoker123]

IBTL?

 

[sablebrush52]

You really have no idea what I "genuinely" believe. I defined "capitalism" in the SSR's as "black marketeering" as the term was used by my friends and co-workers in the venture. I worked there, mostly in a gulag region. I don't need to read someone's take on the conditions. I lived with those who suffered under it. Many of the old folk still revered Stalin, refusing to blame him for their misfortune. It was always a mistake or some such by one of his underlings. Their children had more prosaic (common) and true understanding of the past.

I "genuinely" would detest working in a co-operative. I want the salary I'm worth, not what the "other" guy earns. I 'genuinely" believe my efforts, labor, and the return I'd provide to my employer are worth more than the "other guy's", rightly or wrongly. I've worked in union shops and "genuinely" resented the fact that the lazy and inept made the same wages as the self-starters and more valuable employees. I'm one of those who believes a man should be paid what he's worth and should be allowed to earn as much or as little as he can. I value the individual over the masses.

My needs may generally be the same as the next guy. My wants and desires are, most likely greater. I want a chance to succeed or fail on my terms, not those set by others in a collective. So, I have no, absolutely no, desire to toil in a commune, collective, cooperative, or any other manifestation of a condition which places limits on abilities.

You are, of course, making a lot of assumptions, such as pay unrelated to skills. I've spoken with people at these two ventures about how they do it, and any such assumption is completely wrong. Like any other company, people are paid differently according to their position. The key difference is that they get a share of the profits as well. All of them said that they were doing better financially.

As for well paid incompetents, featherbedding, nepotism, special favors for special favors, you're going to see that in the corporate world both closely held private and publicly traded. I've encountered plenty of dead weight at every studio I've worked at.
People game any system that you want to make up.

I do believe in reward for risk, or I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. I'm both Labor and Capital.

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

Btw: As a side note,It was Soviet Union back then(notRussia) ,wheraes today Russian Federation

 

[musicman]

In Soviet Russia, tobacco smokes YOU!