Co-op Surprises few know, for newbies: Refinery, auto parts

[oscar111]

McPherson KS is a huge refineery coop owned by farmers.

Mondragon Spain is a huge coop area that makes everytghing... auto parts,etc.

To recall these, use the mnemonic

"Mac fears my dragon".

Mac fears - McPherson

my dragon - Mondragon

few know of either of these, but all should. Such success stories buttress the idea,

co ops can do it all.

Banks? do a credit union

insurance? co ops do that too

co ops can do it all

[On the Road]

1. Right. There's No Reason ALL Corporations Must be Profit-Making Entities

Personally, I like news as a nonprofit sector.

[oscar111]

2. CO-OPs make profits: profits just go to the emplyees {who own it equally}

they make profits. However they have the option of not being rabid about increasing the profits. As long as they get enough profits to compete, and also as long as they can pay all the owner/employees, they can keep going well.

There is no man at the top with a rabid urge to get a bigger and bigger pile. No one harming the employees and customer alike, to rake in more profits to his wallet.

No one bribing scurrilious candidates to pass laws that harm the citizens in order to fatten his wallet.

That is the beauty of co ops.

They have a sane, moderate lust for profits. But usually no more than that.

[On the Road]

3. I Support Employee-Owned Companies

There are even a few large ones (or used to be): Avis Rent-a-Car and UAL are two examples. Don't know if profit-making coops or ESOPs have been tried in the news business.

ESOPs may be less likely to outsource and take other employee-hostile actions, but I don't know that they have behaved differently in other ways.

I like the benefits that corporations can bring. But some of their effects are destructive, particularly in areas like news and health care where profits aren't the highest goal. I don't know what the answer is -- maybe there isn't one. But removing profits from the equation is one avenue to look in.

[thegreatwildebeest]

5. There is a difference...

There is a difference between many "employee owned" (ie: own stock options in companies) and co-op's. Co-op's are often, one person, one vote, have rotating authority, and also a flat if not utterly equal pay and benefits across all positions (often because almost all workers in a co-op share jobs). Employee owned companies however, are still at the root prey to those who simply own more stock. Moreover, they are often still structured like typical corporations in a very top down sort of manner. Co-op's, unfortunatly, have not really spread in America outside of a handful of cafes/bookstores and small resteraunts. That said, the largest co-op I know of in America is Equal Exchange, a fair trade coffee importer (www.equalexchange.com).

[FormerDittoHead]

4. Ocean Spray is a co-op too. (at least it was)... n/t

[aneerkoinos]

6. You dang pinko commie!

Co-ops are socialism, don't ya know!!! Workers can't be allowed to own productive means!!! ;)

Seriously, yes co-ops can do it all and form an beneficial private market sector in socialist society. Harmfull sociopathic corporations and stock-market casinos are not needed and should be made illegal.

Finland has got a lot of good co-ops, the co-op chain of banks was the only one that didn't go bonkers during the grazy years of 80's, and consequently didn't need to be bailed out by tax payer money after the collapse came. There's a huge retail co-op with supermarkets, department stores, hotels, etc. etc., and customers can also be owners, with reduced prices and right to vote who manage the co-op.

It is not exaggeration to say that Finland was build by co-ops, and that corporate liberation is slowly but surely dismanteling the well-fare state.

Co-ops are the way to go, they are democratic, not bound by share-holder value and short-termist quartiary capitalism, and can't be bought by monopolistic capital and delocated in cheap labour countries.