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

281–290 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#281

Post by 8bitsrule »

chishaku wrote: post #245
pdonis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you enjoy the the benefits of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act? I like having clean water and clean air. That's why I have air filters in my house and don't drink tap water. > does government at least partially solve the problem of some negative externalities? Government can certainly change incentives in ways that will, at least temporarily, reduce particular negative externalities. But to say that "so…

> That's why I have air filters in my house and don't drink tap water. I'll assume this is a joke. > we can stop worrying about that particular negative externality I'm not sure who said this. In any case, we're all in agreement that the government plays a key role in addressing negative externalities.

Maybe it's up to the servants to shop around for new filters and facemasks?

I've been enjoying this quote for a week:

"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money. - Guy McPherson"

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#282

Post by Pfhreak »

scrollbar wrote: post #239
Pfhreak wrote: post #184

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.

Yeah. I had been trying to do it for awhile but there's surprisingly little activity around here in our sector (Oakland/SF tech) My partners of the consultancy we founded last year decided to go this route. There aren't many great local examples to learn from so we're kind of figuring it out as we go. Obviously B2B tech/software/consulting is very different than for example Arizmendi, a local cooperative bakery. If a…

Right? I look at Seattle and think "There should totally be a thriving tech coop scene here".

But I think it's because of risk -- leaving a FAANG to found a tech coop is a risk. Why give up $400k/year for a moonshot?

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#283

Post by monadic2 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #279
monadic2 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s. > Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property. > No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration. How do you figure? Monopoly typically im…

How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.

> How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.

Well the traditional linguistic connotations of possession certainly persist. Here "seize" simply means take control of.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#284

Post by ollybee »

ollybee wrote: post #7

In the UK there is Suma wholefoods being notable for being the largest equal pay cooperative in Europe with a turn over of £40 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative)

equal pay for all 200+ workers, not only between genders.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#285

Post by tsimionescu »

shadowgovt wrote: post #224
allworknoplay wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is your point?

That Chomsky's ideal end-goal is unrealistic because it is inherently dynamically unstable. Small worker-owned cooperatives plus a free market is an ecosystem ripe for larger worker-owned cooperatives to create incentive structures that let them dominate the market, which lets them grow, which is a positive feedback loop in that incentive structure.

I think we have very little experience with how democratically-controlled organizations would behave and interact in the long term.

You may be right that centralization is inevitable for game-theoretic reasons.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how well game theory can model the decisions of large groups of people who participate in multiple organizations at the same time.

Definitely though, there are no examples from history of a society of democratic societies and how it might behave. Perhaps the closest examples are the ancient Greek cities and post-WW2 Europe (looking only at the state level, democratic corporations have not been tried to any large extent that I know of). In both those cases, there was no spontaneous centralization from within (i.e. one entity conquering the others), though for Europe it is still very early to tell, and there are future signs which may point to more centralization.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#286

Post by macspoofing »

ianleeclark wrote: post #218
macspoofing wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to suggest an alternative. The one that comes to mind is Communism (and its many flavours), and we've seen what a humanitarian and economic disaster that turns out to be.

Political economy is a wide field with something for everyone. Consider it a choose your own adventure.

Right. So no actual alternative.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#287

Post by macspoofing »

orthecreedence wrote: post #263
macspoofing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy for anyone to take potshots from the sidelines, but surely Chomsky sees the economic, and humanitarian disasters that non-market based systems ALWAYS result in. What's the alternative here?

> What's the alternative here? Look into libertarian socialism if you're actually interested.

In my early 20s I got really into all those boutique political theories. Our world is big and complicated, and these marginal and fringe ideas have never been actually tested at any reasonable scale. Anarachism-flavours tend to be universally terrible because they pre-suppose unnatural behaviour on people and in practice will devolve into some flavour of top-down collectivism.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#288

Post by orthecreedence »

macspoofing wrote: post #287
orthecreedence wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the alternative here? Look into libertarian socialism if you're actually interested.

In my early 20s I got really into all those boutique political theories. Our world is big and complicated, and these marginal and fringe ideas have never been actually tested at any reasonable scale. Anarachism-flavours tend to be universally terrible because they pre-suppose unnatural behaviour on people and in practice will devolve into some flavour of top-down collectivism.

You think capitalism is natural? And is top-down "individualism" better than top-down collectivism?

Also, there are real-world examples of libertarian socialism, like the Zapatistas and Rojova. Not ideologically pure, no, but certainly not authoritarian shitholes or capitalist dystopias.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#289

Post by cooperka »

Pfhreak wrote: post #184

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.

I recommend checking out the annual Nonprofit Software Dev Summit in Oakland if you're interested in this. There are numerous folks from tech cooperatives who attend. Last year was amazing https://devsummit.aspirationtech.org/

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#290

Post by paulmd »

naravara wrote: post #266
paulmd wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that describes all regulation and "top down" is a meaningless standard. I dump some chromium waste on my property, pretty soon this "government" is saying it's bad and sending police to come get me saying that "the green goo is making people sick". I hate that top-down big gubmint telling me what I can and can't do! I refuse to employ black people, pretty soon there's a top-down big gubmint telling me that's "di…

>Then that describes all regulation and "top down" is a meaningless standard. Yes. Regulation from a central source of authority is what a top-down model is. I'm not sure what your contention is here.

Then "top down" is a widely deployed and not particularly notable model, such that it's not worth throwing a fit over.
Post reply on HN