Communism101

50 readers

1 users here now

This is a community for those who are new to or unfamiliar with communist, socialist or simply leftist philosophy. Ask basic questions here and learn about what we stand for!

Rules:

Keep things SFW!
Keep posts and comments civil.
Don't attack someone for not knowing "enough" about communism or leftism.
Civil discussion and debate is welcome, trolling and hate speech is not.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, inciting crime/violence, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Can there be a hybrid between state-owned and worker co-op in socialism? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There seem to be two main camps regarding what to do with industries after a socialist revolution: stated-owned companies, and workplace democratisation through worker cooperatives. I'm curious if a hybrid entity could make sense, where maybe the government has some direct control and the workers have some direct control. Is this even theoretically possible or a good idea? Or would it be better if a company under socialism was structured as either one (x)or the other?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] daddyjones 7 points 2 years ago

As someone who calls themself a "cooperative socialist" you can see where my bias lies. I still think that a hybrid is possible - even desirable, though not using the model you describe.

Most companies, in my view, should be worker owned and run. Also, I think most services can and should be worker owned and run. For example, a hospital could be owned and run by its own staff and I think it would benefit from that. The health service nationally, however, would need some government oversight. Especially if the healthcare is (as it should be imho) paid for from taxes. So, while individual "nodes" of the service are cooperatively run, the overall service is managed by the state.

A big part of my reason for thinking this way is that, if we define socialism as the workers owning the means of production, then I think that the state cannot be trusted to own the MoP on the workers behalf. The state will always end up running things for its own benefit rather than society's. Practicalities, however, dictate that certain aspects of life should be managed centrally and, obviously, the state is best placed to do that.

I should also state, for completeness, that I don't favour achieving this through revolution - at least not violent revolution, but through genuinely democratic means.