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

181–190 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#181

Post by yochaigal »

LatteLazy wrote: post #102
TheNorthman wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://drpop.org/mondragon-how-do-you-become-a-member/ > The path to becoming a member of one of the cooperatives begins much like any other employment relationship – a position must be available, and the individual needs to be the right person for the job, as well as pre-disposed to cooperation. Once that is established, the worker is hired into a six-month contract as a temporary employee, much like the provisiona…

Perfect thanks. That all seems fair. I wonder how many people are put off by the 15k buy in? That's about 500 euros a month for 2.5 years. That's a lot for many workers imho. I wonder if its tax deductable...

They don't pay for it all at once. They get a loan from the co-op bank (Laboral Kutxa).

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#182

Post by zepto »

tsimionescu wrote: post #152
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

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…

Surely you would need a lot of rules and enforcement to prevent things simply aggregating?

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#184

Post by Pfhreak »

I'm surprised that more disaffected tech folk aren't starting their own coops. People in companies like

Especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco, where there are strong lefty communities. I wonder if we'll see the folks who get frustrated with the policies of Google/Amazon/etc splinter off to form coops.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#185

Post by macspoofing »

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?

>I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no generally accepted currency

Even under a barter system, there is an intrinsic profit. If you're a farmer, after you feed your family, what's leftover is the surplus (i.e. profit) that you use to trade for other essentials. The difference that matters between a currency system and a barter system is that bartering is less flexible (if someone doesn't want your apples for their furniture, you're not getting that furniture) - but the same forces apply.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#186

Post by pdonis »

H8crilA wrote: post #147
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…

Capitalism itself cannot solve the problem of externalities. That's what the government is for. I don't understand why would anyone think that it can. This is not just my opinion but an opinion of famous capitalists (for example Buffett or Soros).

> Capitalism itself cannot solve the problem of externalities.

True.

> That's what the government is for.

False. Government can't solve the problem of externalities either, because government is even more at the mercy of the perverse incentives that create them than free market participants are.

There is no "solution" to the problem of externalities, if by "solution" you mean some system we can put in place that will magically prevent them from happening or from doing harm. The only way to deal with externalities in general is to remove them wherever possible, by enforcing property rights and minimizing transaction costs.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#187

Post by ianleeclark »

rayiner wrote: post #176
ianleeclark wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is forcing profits. Shareholders? > If you want to start a non-profit aerospace company, nobody is stopping you. Yeah, just found an aerospace company. You don't need anything beyond hard-work and a can-do attitude. Definitely don't need decades worth of relationships, unimaginable capital, or readily hirable talent. You just gotta believe in yourself.

> Shareholders? The system doesn't force anyone to make a profit. If you borrow capital from people, your investors may demand a profit. But that's between you and your investors. Nobody is forcing you to take investment or sell equity in your company on the public markets. > Yeah, just found an aerospace company. You don't need anything beyond hard-work and a can-do attitude. Definitely don't need decades worth of r…

> The system doesn't force anyone to make a profit. If you borrow capital from people, your investors may demand a profit. But that's between you and your investors. Nobody is forcing you to take investment or sell equity in your company on the public markets.

If you want to just completely change the conversation, and hyperfocus on the individual, then you're free to do so, but I don't want to be brought along for the ride. You responded to a comment concerning Boeing, not some fresh-faced up-and-comer of your own creation.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#188

Post by hooverlunch »

cambalache wrote: post #173
hooverlunch wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can I apply to be a member from abroad?

As of now we're only U.S. based, unfortunately. Adding international members adds a lot of complications that we don't have the scale to deal with.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#189

Post by Ericson2314 »

andreilys wrote: post #155
nickbauman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, Corporations absolutely do do violance to their employees. Contrariwise, dictators seldom use violence outside their borders unless they are powerful enough.

In both cases, borders matter.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#190

Post by ianleeclark »

macspoofing wrote: post #179
ianleeclark wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Why does a price necessarily include a profit or a loss It includes a profit or a loss because you need to eat and provide for yourself. If you're making chairs but the cost of materials is larger than what you sell those chairs for, how are you going to provide for your family? If you want to save up for a house or a car, or family vacation, how are you going to do that if you don't sell your chairs with a surplus…

> If you're making chairs but the cost of materials is larger than what you sell those chairs for, how are you going to provide for your family?

This is the "self-referential" thing I was referring to. You're entering into this thought experiment with a pre-defined conception of how an economic mode of production must operate. You're presupposing the profit motive.

Post reply on HN