HN Books @HNBooksMonth

As I understand it (from reading [0]), that would have historically been called "socialism" (the term changed a bit to mean command economies during the Cold War).

The Mondragon [1] corporation organizations around these lines.

In general - as I understand it - you could view Unions and Coops as attempts to apply democratic processes to operating a business.

[0] - https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...

[1] - https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/

EDIT: for clarity and link organization

For those who aren't familiar with his work, Richard Wolff is the author of [Democracy at Work][0] and strong proponent of worker owned and governed businesses.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...

⬐ grussergraph

A very wise man.

⬐ pbhjpbhj

Thank you for posting that, it sounds like an element of my own long held thesis that I've been mulling over for a few years (I'm a communist of sorts working mentally on the issue of transition from capitalist structures). Any other authors/works along this line that you know of - namely moving away from capitalist structure by reacquisition of ownership for workers and/or the demos?

⬐ incadenza

Michael Albert - Participatory Economics.

"There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics."

I note that you said "corporate" vs "capital(ism)". Thank you for making the distinction.

Most liberals I hang with favor a Sander-esque version of capitalism meets socialism. Balancing capitalism (ready access to capital), competition, open markets with a strong safety net and democracy. Balancing rewarding achievement and merit with ensuring fairness, not abandoning people.

What does that look like?

I think it looks like more democracy. Every where.

--

I've used democratic decision making in the workplace. It's very effective. Think of it as better governance meets social cognition.

Although probably not original, I just kinda made it up, mostly modeled after the USA's Constitution (balance of power) and Demming/Ford quality circles (empowerment, joint decision making).

Since, I've been keenly interested in any effort swimming in the same direction. Co-ops, worker owned companies, the political philosophy of the Occupy Movement, whatever I can find.

I recently read this book. It's good survey of our current pickle (winner takes all economy, chaotic boom/bust cycles) with an okay primer on worker self directed enterprises (WSDE). The "more democracy" prescription is the closest I've found to my experiences. But being rhetoric vs a howto, it lacks actionable steps.

Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...

http://www.democracyatwork.info

⬐ dbingham

The Next System Project is a similar think tank doing a lot of investigation into what this idea (and others) look like when implemented on the scale of a whole economy.

https://thenextsystem.org/

⬐ milcron

Related link dump

Bernie Sanders and the Nordic countries are Social Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

    Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports
    economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the
    framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a
    commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution,
    and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state
    provisions.

The "democracy everywhere" which you describe sounds like Democratic Socialism, which is a bit further to the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

    Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political
    democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with
    an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist
    economic system. Democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently
    incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity;
    and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by
    superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership [in the
    form of democracy].

Even more related concepts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Libertarian_s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

⬐ specialist

Belated response. Thank you for the links, excerpts. Been pondering.

My issue is inequity, not capitalism. So I don't think I'm a Democratic Socialist.

I'd even be okay with corporations if they were put back into their place. Corporations are not people, natural or otherwise. They should only exist by charter, in the service of society. The current corporatism idealogy (Freedom Markets[tm]) is nutty making.

⬐ dbingham

You could also call it "Free Market Socialism" which is my person favorite term for it.

Although "Democratic Economy" is also apt.

⬐ RodericDay

You cannot make decisions simultaneously via "one person one vote" and "whoever has most capital calls the shots".

⬐ afsina

That term is an oxymoron.

⬐ belorn

This will just end up being a discussion about definitions, but lets dip into it.

We can define a socialism government to be one that have the goal of having social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

We can define a free market to be one in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

Thus a Free Market Socialism would be socialism which achieve social ownership and democratic control of the means of production by having a government that prevents price-setting monopolies.

⬐ int_19h

What do you mean by "social ownership"?

The traditional definition of socialism is that it has public ownership of the means of production (i.e. shared by society as a whole). What you describe wouldn't achieve that, because, even with market regulations that prevent monopolization, means of production would still be privately owned - there'd just be more such private owners. But the basics of private ownership of the means of production - the ability to extract economic rent from them - wouldn't change, and that basic ability is what defines capitalism.

⬐ afsina

Free markets allow monopolies. Actually it is the dream of all producers, but in practice they cannot live long. Reason there are monopolies or very high barriers to enter some industries is the state granted rights (eg. IP rights), regulations and restrictions.

Also you are avoiding the actual "social" side of the Socialism. In Socialism, there is always a forced redistribution mechanism in the name of "exploitation of the labor class". Which makes the "free market" impossible.

⬐ belorn

monopolies and a free market is a oxymoron because at that point the monopoly has become a authority that intervene in the forces of supply and demand. Such authority can exist without government, and given enough capital and positioning it can be very stable. In history we can find examples of companies that through pure size and weight can solely influence the forces of supply and demand, with no need to get help from governments.

The state can naturally also create monopolies. patents are explicit in this, granting an entity a "limited" timed monopoly.

> there is always a forced redistribution mechanism

And now we enter the definition of terms. Forced redistribution is mechanism, not a goal in itself. Historically there have been governments that have tried it, through to be honest there hasn't been a country that have not had events of forced redistribution, and if the book Debt - The First 5,000 Years is correct in the historical data, the elimination of debt through violence was a recurring event that happened in all cultures. Forced redistribution happens all the time in history when the ability to repay get too impossible low compared to the amount of money being owned.

⬐ afsina

No, What I said is, monopolies can exist for a short time in a free-market system. But they live much longer in state controlled-restricted markets. And I doubt there is any example in History a real monopoly lived as long as patent expiration time (no, Standard oil was not a monopoly.) even in a "mostly" free market economy. Examine the Phoebus cartel for an example. Patents are indefensible in my eyes after witnessing the damage it gave to the development of human kind (pharmaceuticals, tech, software etc.). Besides, IP rights is only one of state's monopoly generation tools.

Perhaps my wording was not correct. What I mean by "forced redistribution" is getting money from producers by force (via taxation) and distributing it to a arbitrarily selected people. This is required in all forms of Socialism and it violates the rules of free market (capitalism).

⬐ belorn

monopolies in a free-market system is an authority. One can claim that they should expire faster or exist with less frequencies, but an authority is an authority, and with it it can exert pressure on what would be a balance between supply and demand.

If we look far enough into the past, large enough monopolies are indistinguishable from governments. The Hanseatic League had their own armies, their own laws and even their own cities. Under their rule they fully controlled supply and demand, including price, which no longer makes it a free-market system. Still, they aren't what we define as a state (definitions...).

Taxation don't violate a free market. A free market need laws, which in turn require police and military, which in turn need to be paid (which distributes money). If everyone has to have their own police, military and laws, everyone becomes small islands of states. Those states then violate the supply-demand market, and thus you no longer have a free market.

There is no free lunch here. One can try to redefine what a free market is, what socialism is, what a state is, what a authority is, what taxation is, what interferences is, but it will just ends up arguing definitions.

⬐ dbingham

I like the term precisely because it causes that double take moment that catches people's attention. It's not actually an oxymoron when you more carefully examine it.

Socialism just dictates that the workers own the product of their work. A free market socialist economy would be one in which employees owned and democratically controlled businesses and in which it was illegal to sell equity in a business (the stock market simply wouldn't exist).

It could be structured as "one employee one vote" or it could be structured so you earned equity and vote over time (perhaps in proportion to your salary). Capital financing in this economy would happen through bank loans (which wouldn't confer any kind of control), crowd sourcing, and through public means.

This economy isn't centrally planned. The government doesn't own the businesses, the employees do. The government doesn't dictate how they operate, the employees do, democratically. You can still start your own business, and when you're the only employee, you call the shots -- it's only when you hire your first employee that you have to start sharing decision making in some way.

It's free market, because there's still a free market for goods and services. Businesses still compete in a competitive market.

It's a really, really interesting idea. When you dig into it, you find all kinds of fascinating and promising potential side effects of a society and economy shaped this way.

For just one example, it would incentivize innovation and the finding of efficiencies even more powerfully than a capitalistic free market -- because the worker making the innovation would ultimately own and control the business benefiting and so would directly benefit. If a worker came up with a innovation that increased efficiency, that worker would then get a voice in whether the increased efficiency was turned into more wages or more free time. That's a huge incentive. Right now, there's no guarantee that any particular employee will benefit directly from their innovations, so many aren't incentivized to really try very hard at their jobs.

There are many other possible effects of a society structured like this. Among them: - People who get more practice at operating democratically and would thus get better at it. - It might discourage growth after a point - because large democracies get unwieldy fast. - It would naturally resist the concentration of wealth and power because the system would more evenly spread the profits of business. - It would encourage businesses to stay in and be more respectful of the communities they operate in because the people who are calling the shots also live in those communities. - Similarly there might be less of a need for regulation around externalities (like the environment) because the folks calling the shots are the ones living in the communities in which the businesses operate and are directly effected by the externalities.

But it's also an idea that's really hard for a lot of people in our current economy and society to wrap their heads around. The idea that "Free Market Capitalism" and "Totalitarian, Centrally Planned Communism" are the only two systems available is really heavily ingrained in most people. And the concept of a business that operates democratically is totally alien to most. We're just so used to hierarchical, authoritarian businesses that it's hard for many people to even imagine it could be another way.

⬐ milcron

The most well-known socialist economies were central command economies, it is true. But "socialism" isn't synonymous with central command. It's supposed to mean the economy is controlled by the workers, rather than by capitalists/shareholders.

In the USSR, the economy was controlled by the communist party on behalf of the workers. Under democratic socialism, enterprises are democratically managed by the people who work there.

⬐ DrScump

  ...on behalf of the workers

That is debatable.

⬐ milcron

Ha, well. That's what they said they were doing. In practice it was much more of a plutocracy.

⬐ frgtpsswrdlame

Check out the platform Zephyr Teachout/Tim Wu ran on. They were pretty close to you albeit without co-ops. Actually the whole Open Markets program which just got removed has some really good stuff in this vein. On youtube you can find several talks they've given (not sure how long they will last.)

"We’d also like to discuss how tech companies can heal the divide in our country. We believe that tech companies can create a better economic future for all Americans by spreading high-paying technology jobs around the country and other measures."

Isn't the elephant in the room extreme capitalism? Tech is just accelerating it.

Perhaps the alternative is workers managing their own workplaces:

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...

Governance, government. Sure. I can buy that.

Are member-owned and worker-owned just variations on a theme?

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...

Two big reasons.

#1 Abundant labor, meaning buyers market, so developers don't have leverage. This has a pretty good primer on the topic:

Democracy At Work

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/...

#2 I'm as pinko commie liberal socialist as they come, and I can't imagine how even the most well intentioned (least alt-factual neo-reactionary libertarian) group of developers can coordinate collectively. Said another way, I can't imagine preventing the free-rider, defector problem.

This book covers the sociology of collective action:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

Maybe, just maybe, there's a unifying issue or policy, like protecting privacy rights, that could motivate most developers to pull in the same direction... Just to throw out an idea as an example.

⬐ wattt

Wow you and I live in alternate universes. In my experience, and having been without work at various times, and freelancing... I believe developers are scarce. You need an aptitude and some (self?) training to take part and a lot of people can't be bothered.

That being said, I see you describe yourself as a "pinko commie" and as a business owner who was at one time a union administrator in a past life I would never hire you, so perhaps that explains the bubble you are living in.

⬐ specialist

"as a business owner ... I would never hire you"

Darn.

⬐ NoPiece

Good developers are scarce, bad ones aren't.

⬐ wattt

I guess if you aren't good you start calling yourself a "pinko commie" as if it was a virtue!

⬐ tacostakohashi

I think this is probably the crux of why organizing isn't appealing for developers / tech workers.

There is huge disparity and in worker skill levels, productivity and salaries. Lots of mediocre developers on, say $60,000, but also lots of guys on $150,000 and up, with pretty different concerns (e.g., maybe the guy on $200,000 can live with a few late nights).

Pretty different from, say, auto workers or bus drivers where you have thousands of staff at the same skill and salary level, with the same interests and concerns.