Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Without any government there won't be any Amazon WSDE either.

Think about it.

 

Obviously you have not bothered to do any research at all into the principles that are inherent in successful WSDE's.

 

The only freedom missing in socialism is the freedom to exploit others. And it provides the added TRUE freedom to participate consciously and authentically in your own work, freedom from exploitation, true freedom of the press, and every other freedom we think we have today but usually don't really.

 

Right, you would hate having no government to tell you what to do.

 

No doubt, more freedom than you have now.

 

That's quite a claim.

 

Then you're saying everyone could just do as they wished?

 

I'm quite free now, what more freedom could I ask for aside from freedom from filing and paying income taxes?

 

It wouldn't surprise you if you actually understood Marxism and socialism. Read my signature line.

 

Only a rightie could say that. LOL!!!!!! It's true that ignorance is bliss. I was blissful when I was 12 and had no knowledge nor understanding of politics.

 

It's not a case of understanding Marxism and/or socialism or reading your signature line. How many persons do you know who would agree with you 100 percent on every issue you could imagine?

 

And now you're 13?

 

Given the intensity and duration of the anti-communist propaganda we've been subjected to, not many. The vast majority of people don't think they've been targeted by propaganda or that it has had any effect on them. That is how subtle and effective it has been.

 

Yeah, I'm 13. Obviously older than you.

 

In the absence of any government, in an anarchy, that will be me.

I don't think you'd like it.

 

Careful. "Anarchy" is very different from "anarchism".

 

Obviously your propaganda is having little effect on me, or from what I can tell, none of my more Left wing friends who are mostly Europeans.

 

Sadly, quite likely untrue.

 

Holding up Mondragon as the beacon, yet less than half the employees are owner/workers...

"Like other European companies, Mondragon is exposed to fierce competition from developing world competitors with lower labour costs. Its response has been to set up factories – or buy companies – in other parts of the world. There are now 94 subsidiaries producing goods from Vietnam to Chile, Morocco and Russia.

Workers at these, however, are not co-op members (fewer than half of Mondragon's workforce are members) – meaning they are also raw-blooded capitalists, living off the labour of others."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/07/mondragon-spains-giant-cooperative

 

Yup, it's hard to get worker-owners in other countries. But in Spain some opt-out of membership either because of tight money for buy-in, or wanting to see how the job works out first, or because the worker knows he going to be moving on in some period of time. Everyone has a different reason, but that doesn't have any effect on the functioning of the company. They remain worker-owned and they continue to act like it.

 

Here is thing, I am not a worker owner of the company I am employed at.

My economic relationship is not so simplistic.

I work at one company but have shares in some others.



If I am unhappy with my job, I change it.
Same for the companies I invest in.
No problem.

 

it's pure insanity to champion worker owned businesses when there are already 30 million of them in the USA that appeared quite naturally without the need for a goofy cheer leading squad. It would be about on par with championing anti oxidants in blueberries which is absurd.

 

You seem to be unclear on some basic concepts: being found at a link does not make a claim a fact, and not being accompanied by a link does not make facts into opinions.

No, you have not. All you have done is provide a link to something that agrees with your own erroneous interpretation of events. Senior management at PanAm had their hands tied by union contracts and the associated unsustainable health insurance and pension obligations. Hindsight is 20/20, and of course we can see things they should have done differently, but that doesn't mean they were incompetent, or that having to meet union demands did not bankrupt the company.

 

socialism is when govt owns and manages major industries. Normally they make competition illegal in favor of lazy govt monopoly that becomes more and more inefficient. This is how 120 million exploited souls died!

 

<sigh> Do you think that pointing out to abolitionists the availability of slaves for purchase in the antebellum South was responsive to their reasons for opposing slavery?