Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mondragon Corporation

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#151

Post by andreilys »

dbingham wrote: post #121
jp555 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

No, that's not the alternative. The alternative is a system that isn't profit driven, where all the companies are worker cooperatives. In that system, there are no stock holders demanding ever greater returns, those doing the work are always completely in control. They can choose to do "just enough" to live a good life. Or they can choose to focus on the more fulfilling aspects of their work, and not on the profit. I…

“ The alternative is a system that isn't profit driven, where all the companies are worker cooperatives.”

Enforced by a central top-down bureaucratic organization.

In this hypothetical world would you let foreign companies motivated by profit compete in your country that only has worker co-ops? Or would you have a closed down market, similar to North Korea that only Approved Co-ops would be allowed to work in?

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#152

Post by tsimionescu »

jp555 wrote: post #113
irthomasthomas wrote: post #94

I thought Chomsky's quote was interesting. "Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive…

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

Chomsky is anti-centralization, he is an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist).

In general, his ideal end-goal world would include smaller states with more direct control by the populace, with worker-owned and worker-managed corporations, with free markets of goods and services between different corporations and different states, and of course freedom of movement. Strong environmental control would be almost implied if the people doing an economic activity were in charge of decisions and were also directly impacted by the effects of those decisions. Localizing and letting corporations be small would also put a natural cap on inequality, though democratically run states could impose additional safeguards where needed (minimum wages, estate taxes, non-discrimination clauses etc.)

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#153

Post by glitcher »

Wow that is quite a lot of employees, but this excerpt came across a bit odd to me:

> At the end of 2014, it employed 74,117 people... > By 2015, 74,335 people were employed

So the increase of 0.29% over a brief although somewhat ambiguous period of time is supposed to tell me what?

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#154

Post by sudoaza »

denzil_correa wrote: post #74
cies wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This Amul a worker coop? I'm only interested in worker coops, should have specified that.

I guess so. > It is important to note that Amul Federation passes on 80-85% of consumer rupee back to milk producer members thus encouraging them to produce more milk. https://amul.com/files/pdf/GCMMF-sales-Turnover-2017-18-0104...

Yup producer coops are quite commonplace for milk production in other places too.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#155

Post by andreilys »

nickbauman wrote: post #131
jp555 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

Have you ever noticed that once you pierce the walls of "big corp", you find a command economy that's driven dictatorially from the c-suite? Capitalism and "free" markets are great for everyone else. Dictatorship is de rigueur inside the company.

Thankfully dictators of a company are less likely to use violence to coerce me to buy their products/services.

Governments on the other hand have a monopoly on violence, so I am more wary of handing them power over the choices I can make in my life.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#156

Post by ianleeclark »

wuliwong wrote: post #134
ianleeclark wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote there seems to have issues with the profit motive, not market systems.

In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss. I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no generally accepted currency but I do not think that is what most people mean when they use the term "market systems." There is a lot I'm unaware of, possibly market systems without prices is one of those things?

> In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss.

Why does a price necessarily include a profit or a loss? This is a self-referential belief: my price includes a profit or loss because a prior price includes a profit or loss which would earlier ... etc, etc.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#157

Post by naravara »

spamizbad wrote: post #140
jp555 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing no profits is central management at it's very worst - Setting prices causes many downstream derangements to markets. A complex interconnected system will adapt in unforeseeable ways, causing novel externalities for which we have no built up immunity. Ask a soviet.

Forcing profits is bad too. Just look at Boeing to see where the naked pursuit of profits can lead. It literally kills people.

Some people will argue the issue there is time-horizons. If Boeing was worried about profitability indefinitely into the future, these sorts of repetitional disasters would factor in. But if everyone is looking quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year they won't.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#158

Post by therrazerr »

antr wrote: post #56
thundergolfer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got anything I can look at regarding the financing of terrorism? Wouldn’t that be extremely illegal and would absolutely need to be reported to the government?

We did. The Mondragon Group already had some history of financing terrorism(1), but we didn't know affiliates outside the Basque Country could be involved. Ecotecnia was based in Barcelona. (1): http://www.interior.gob.es/noticias/detalle/-/journal_conten...

so one individual that works in the corp was detained, and suddenly the whole organization finances terrorism? very convincing

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#159

Post by hooverlunch »

sudoaza wrote: post #143
hooverlunch wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, you can't sell a worker coop. One of the key defining features is a "de-mutualization" provision in the founding documents. You can only sell your own share, which has, in our coop, a fixed value of $1,000. And you can only sell that share back to the coop.

interesting, does the value ever change? did you pay that $1.000 at any moment or was discounted from work at any moment? what about new members?

No, it deliberately stays fixed to reduce barriers to entry for new member-owners.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#160

Post by naravara »

dls2016 wrote: post #137
jp555 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

Is the alternative to bank robbing a top-down central-managed solution? No, we simply penalize the behavior. We could do the same and penalize exploitation by corporations. Hold individuals accountable. Extreme fines. You may argue this would be complicated, but so is a lot of existing legislation surrounding international trade.

>Is the alternative to bank robbing a top-down central-managed solution? No, we simply penalize the behavior.

Penalizing the behavior sounds like a top-down solution to me. Government decides it's bad, then government sends the police to come get you if you do it.

Post reply on HN