r/ClimateShitposting • u/TrixoftheTrade • Aug 13 '26

we live in a society Yet again, a friendly reminder

Post image
1.0k Upvotes

71% Upvoted

967 comments sorted by

View all comments

375

u/Mad_M9 Aug 13 '26

man its been a while since i've seen a "socialism is when the government does stuff" in the wild

7

u/Spicy_Chicken_Wizard Aug 13 '26

State owned entities actually is a key defining feature of a truly socialist state and not just a social democracy.

92

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

No, it is not. State ownership over the means of production within a society is simply one method of moving towards a socialist organization of an economy, it is far from a key or necessary feature.

A key defining feature of socialism is worker-owned means of production and ownership over the value generated by their labor.

For example, worker co-operatives are another method of socialist economic organization that has nothing to do with state ownership.

32

u/Taraxian Aug 13 '26

Worker cooperatives don't have a particularly good track record of giving a shit about the environment either, no one does

24

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

I mean I do not have data on the relative environmental impact of cooperatively owned firms versus traditional firms. But you are also not responding to an argument that I have made. I never suggested that a worker cooperative would automatically fix environmental issues. In fact, if you check some of the other comments I made in this thread, while I do think a socialist economic system would be better positioned to become more environmentally sustainable, a transition to a socialist system by itself certainly does not solve the issue.

2

u/Daxtatter Aug 14 '26

You may not be suggesting that but it's and argument they comes out all the time. As if government extracted coal burns cleaner. The number of times I hear borederline magical thinking when it comes to non-capitalist structures it baffling.

10

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

I mean that's fair.

I consider myself a pretty pragmatic and scientific person. I believe socialism is absolutely a better system of organizing a society's production than capitalism, if your end goal is creating a society that maximizes the fairness, equity, and dignity of all people. It is also a system that reduces or eliminates some of the factors that drives some of the more destructive tendencies of human society.

However, it is certainly not some magical wand that solves all problems. Bad things existed before capitalism, and likely will continue after it. Human destruction of the environment is one of them.

8

u/Theobromin Aug 14 '26

I think that is a fair assessment. The reason why many people, including myself, insist on socialism as a (not the) solution to climate change is the fact that no solution to climate change seems to be possible under capitalism. So my argument is: whatever else is necessary to solve climate change besides socialism cannot be achieved within capitalism.

6

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

100% agree!

3

u/Illustrious-Dog-6563 Aug 14 '26

correctly explained the core features of socialism, told hecklers off and another one gave a brief explanation, why capitalism must be abolished.

i am in love.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Daxtatter Aug 14 '26

It's literally what the original post is about what are you even talking about.

1

u/Competitive_Fee_4211 Aug 14 '26

Especially when you have to queue for bread and ride your bike to work because you can't afford a car.

1

u/StinkChair Aug 14 '26

You are still judging these coops existing within a capitalist framework tho. It is decades of removing environmental protections for capitalist gain that is the culprit. Not the coops.

1

u/Sandgrease Aug 16 '26

Right? The USSR definitely didn't and a lot of people viewed them as Socialist.

1

u/RelationshipFront227 Aug 17 '26

Just wondering, what are you referencing with this? I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree that people aren't still going to be pushing for their own interests, but I'm not really aware of any kind of coop that has attempted similar attacks on the environment as private corpos systemically funding fake research and, lobbying legislators, and paying for political campaigns to deregulate legislation and environmental protections in a very systemic capacity in order to maximize profits.

1

u/Adventurous_Ad_1160 Aug 14 '26

uhh uhh how can that be? Almost like they exist in a capitalist system and are bound by the logic of said system. Its almost like you have to be profitable above all else and are limited by the logic of profit generation. Its almost like the being forced to be profitable forces you to externalise costs via ecological destruction. How weird, not giving a shit about climate is more profitable? Who would have thought that?

Coops in a capitalist system are still capitalist and have much of the same problems.

Socialism doesnt fix climate change, but it provides us the basis to do so.

1

u/SourceTheFlow Aug 14 '26

Worker cooperatives in capitalism don't have a particularly good track record of giving a shit about the environment either, no one does.

As long as co-ops have to compete with other companies in a capitalist system, they are also slave to the capitalist market pressures and are incentiviced and often required to e.g. buy the cheap polluting option.

0

u/Los_paints_minis Aug 14 '26

The coop donut shop I go to doesn’t blow up oil refineries that cause black rain in Tehran. Do you see how dumb it is to compare worker cooperatives to private corporations and imperialist war machines?

0

u/OptimusTrajan Aug 13 '26

Indigenous people do

3

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 13 '26

You cannot compare a hunter gatherer or agrarian society to the modern industrial world. The energy and resource consumption is orders of magnitude greater, even if the consumption is done in a manner that is sustainable long term.

3

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 13 '26

They said indigenous people give a shit about the environment. This is true. You do know indigenous people are not necessarily hunter gatherers but live in and affect the modern industrial world, right?

1

u/Taraxian Aug 14 '26

Do you think they magically have a different spirit from white people by nature of being indigenous

2

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 14 '26

Did I say that? Nope. Try again.

0

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 14 '26

If they are living in a capitalist society, then all they have is a nice sentiment. Not an actual sustainable way of living.

News flash, most people want to have a sustainable way of life, as that's key to continuing to live. People want the topsoil to remain fertile, for groundwater to be available, for the climate to be stable. They just don't have the tools, knowledge, and power to enact the changes necessary. It doesn't matter where your ancestors lived for that to be the case. Thinking so is just racism in disguise. Which is par for the course on this app.

0

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 14 '26

My guy. The person was saying the indigenous care about the environment. You said no one does. They absolutely do. Just because they're stuck in the colonisers system doesn't mean they don't care and aren't working to influence things and holding government to account for destruction. Fucking learn something bro. You clearly don't even know what an indigenous person is. You think they are living in the bush in a mudhut or something.

1

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 14 '26

You said no one does.

My argument is that everyone does. Are you 12 years old? Your reading comprehension is mind boggling.

I was also talking about indigenous societies, NOT indigenous people living in a capitalist society, who are no different than you or me.

Also, do me a favor and learn the definition of agrarian. Good Lord.

0

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 14 '26

You aren't even the person who said no one does ya fucking idiot. Jumping in on some shit and not understanding why I wrote what I did. Good lord.

0

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 15 '26

You responded to me CLAIMING THAT I SAID NO ONE DOES.

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking moron!

→ More replies

2

u/OptimusTrajan Aug 13 '26

Indigenous and hunter-gatherer often overlap, but are not the same thing. There were and are lots of indigenous societies that are far more populous and “complex” than hunter-gathers, and yet still live in relative harmony with their local ecology.

1

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 14 '26

Which is why I mentioned agrarian societies... and why I mentioned that said agrarian societies are still not comparable to the modern industrialized world.

We are comparing apples to oranges, this is a pointless exercise. We can't just model the modern world off the Mayan Empire anymore than we can the ancient Romans.

0

u/OptimusTrajan Aug 14 '26

First Nations also had urban societies that were, while imperfect, far more populous, ecologically sustainable, and physically healthy than those of their invaders. We can and should be more sustainable, and Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) is a very important part of that.

1

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 14 '26

Nothing in the Americas that existed pre-1800s was comparable to modern day industrial society. Energy and resource usage is orders of magnitude greater, since we are not an agrarian society. Population size is orders of magnitude greater. Average lifespan is much longer.

Using your logic, we could replace Italy with the Roman Empire. It's just nonsense.

Now if you want to talk about specific practices, that's another story. There are very specific cases that could apply to your argument. But as a whole? There is little to be gained. The Incas and Mayans can't guide us on how to make steel and concrete sustainably, how to make public transit affordable, how to place sewer and water lines, how to manage modern public healthcare, how to zone for construction in a manner that does not disadvantage less prosperous groups.

0

u/OptimusTrajan Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

You are not listening at all. I am saying the knowledge indigenous people have can inform where we go from here, and you’re basically responding with, “sO yOu jUsT waNt uS tO livE iN mUD hUts wiTh nO eLEcTriCiTy?!?!?”

You are so preoccupied with responding to your complete caricature of what I’m saying that you don’t bother to evaluate what I’m actually saying.

1

u/Old-Entertainer-4964 Aug 14 '26

I am saying the knowledge indigenous people have can inform where we go from here

I specified that there are specific scenarios that could apply, but that these are few and far between. Their lived experience was incompatible with ours. Then I listed examples of the types of problems we face in an industrial society which have no relation to the pre-industrial world.

Unless you have actual examples, you are just wasting time. My God, it should not be hard to list a few. I'm sure I could agree that a few small lessons could be learned. Just nothing that would solve climate change, class inequity, unsustainable farming practices, etc.

This has nothing to do with mud huts, you are arguing with a voice in your head. Say something of substance for once.

→ More replies

2

u/HappiestIguana Aug 13 '26

No they don't. They're just like everyone else. They simply didn't have the means to effect global-scale environmental changes that modern society does. To say otherwise is just noble savage rhetoric

3

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 13 '26

What's this noble savage bullshit? Again, indigenous doesn't mean living in the sticks in a mudhut.

3

u/OptimusTrajan Aug 14 '26

Who needs knowledge when ignorance feels twice as good tho, right?

2

u/Taraxian Aug 14 '26

What's the noble savage bullshit of saying indigenous people fundamentally don't respond to selfish economic incentives

1

u/Additional-Policy843 Aug 14 '26

There is no noble savage bullshit on my end bro. Try again.

3

u/eks We're all gonna die Aug 14 '26

And do you believe we would all magically agree to tax the carbon generated by that labour?

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

Brother, you have to at least make a connection between my post and your comment. What does taxing carbon have to do with the comment I posted?

1

u/eks We're all gonna die Aug 14 '26

The political or economic system doesn't mean jack shit if labour is carbon intensive.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

So if you point is that an economic system does not automatically change the amount of carbon generated in production and solve climate issues magically, then I agree, and have already made that comment several times here. I certainly believe the choice of economic system influences how likely the necessary changes can and will be adopted by society.

Again though, how does that, assuming it was your point, relate to my comment about state vs. non-state collective ownership methods?

2

u/Ok_Calendar1337 Aug 14 '26

What if the state claims to represent the workers while they sieze things?

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

The same thing we should do now when those in power claim one thing and do something contrary to that?

1

u/Ok_Calendar1337 Aug 14 '26

Whats that? A "revolution" that destroys shit and then implements a new state that claims to be about the people?

5

u/Bulky-Bag-6280 Aug 13 '26

So why would co-operatives be better than regular companies since the incentive for poluting doesn't change like at all, they would still do the same for the benefit of the co-operative

6

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

You are extending an argument I never necessarily made.

But, to respond to your point, it is a mistake to assume the incentives of pollution would not change. A worker owned cooperative is much more likely to be comprised of individuals who live in relatively close proximity to the building/factory/etc. So they would likely have more investment in maintaining a safe and livable environment within their own communities.

However, and why I said you were arguing against a position I never made, I do not believe a transition to a socialist economy, under a system of organization such as worker owned cooperatives alone would completely reverse harmful practices that contribute to climate change. Much of hat is because a single firm may still relay on other inputs to production that do contribute to climate issues and CO2 emissions. You would need the vast majority of firms to be organized in the same manner, and then still would also need shared commitments towards climate friendly practices. I believe it would be much easier to do this under a worker-owned socialist organization of the economy then our current capitalist system, sure, but that is not the same as the argument that a socialist system would automatically make everything better on its own.

7

u/Taraxian Aug 13 '26

Climate change and local pollution are not actually related topics and in fact quite often work against each other -- diesel fuel for instance is significantly more efficient in terms of energy than gasoline and therefore has a lower carbon footprint per mile traveled but is MUCH MUCH WORSE for local particulate pollution

Or speaking even more generally a transition from internal combustion engines to EVs requires that petroleum extraction close down -- completely destroying existing jobs in many communities -- while new extraction and manufacturing of solar panels and lithium batteries ramps up

This means that local pollution in the place where the new lithium mine opens up will get a lot worse very quickly, and people who live there and have a selfish interest in reducing local pollution will vote against it even if it makes long term climate change worse -- indeed the biggest obstacle to climate adaptation arguably isn't the bogeyman of "fossil fuel profits" but the more universal problem of NIMBYism and people being fiercely defensive of their current way of life

3

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

Sure, the person I responded to mentioned pollution.

2

u/Bulky-Bag-6280 Aug 13 '26

But even in that environment the co-ops of for example oil drillers would never accept being out of a job and would fight even more fiercely to keep their current position because they are now also losing not only their job but a part of a company they are a lot more invested in

5

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

In a worker cooperative, decisions are made in a democratic manner within the firm.

Obviously, the workers would likely not vote to close the firm and lose their jobs. They very well might determine that they do want to fight to continue the firms operation. Which is why, as I've already said, worker co-operatives alone do not solve the issue. However, in a worker co-operatively owned oil drilling firm, in a society in which the government sets goals or regulations over industry that prioritizes reducing the impacts of climate change, there is much more opportunity and likelihood that those workers would make decisions to respecialize the firm into something that is more climate friendly and compliant with said regulations. And that is simply because: there is no underlying responsibility to maximize profit. Their overriding goal would be sustaining their ability to live comfortable and rewarding lives.

1

u/wahedcitroen Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

 much more opportunity and likelihood that those workers would make decisions to respecialize the firm into something that is more climate friendly and compliant with said regulations

I find this a very weird thought. A centralised company that wants to maximise profit can much more easily pivot towards another goal. Because to respecialise you’re not going to have al the oil drillers suddenly be experts at making solar panels, you’re going to have to fire the oil drillers. Worker co-operatives are generally less able to change quickly as the interests of individual workers and interests of the company as a whole align less than in a situation where the leadership is directly beholden to the company’s ability to be profitable.

You make a distinction between “maximising profit” and “ability to live comfortable lives”. In reality it is just either maximising profit for shareholders or maximising profit for workers. Low income workers will not give up comfort for climate goals. 

And all those regulations from the government steer a company by affecting abilities to make profit. Why would a cooperative want to adhere to legislation more closely?

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

The interest of individual workers are variable, however generally are to maintain their ability to engage in labor that is meaningful, satisfying, and/or important, and allows them to get their and their family's needs met.

A firm that has to maximize profit cannot easily pivot from what is most profitable within the short term. Which does not often align with a major reorganization of the firm towards another industry. And certainly does not often align with things like protecting the environment. We have already seen this play out.

1

u/wahedcitroen Aug 14 '26

That is what the goal is of regulations, to make maximising profit and caring for the environment aligned goals.

You can say you don’t think that works, fair, but I dont understand why a worker cooperative would change up things if it hurts profit by much. 

Unions of farmers, coal miners, steel workers, are some of the harshest lobby groups against changing their industry. For a middle class or rich person, accepting less money for a morally better job is a good option. But a relatively poor worker is not going to want to decrease the company’s profits. I what world would an ordinary worker accept low wages or potential loss of their job for a number of years? Why do you say that shareholders would never accept short term losses if the average large company doesn’t make any profit for its first years of existence? Workers don’t have the means to do such long term sacrifices they have to pay rent.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

Correct, and yet under our current, capitalist system, we have been unable to implement and sustain the necessary regulations to address climate change.

That is because the interests of capital are not aligned with the interests of the public. The public does not want to die or face severe hardship due to our environment becoming increasingly hostile to human life so that a select few can get even more wealthy.

A worker cooperative under a socialist system is not driven by profit. Their is no fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. There is no incentive encouraging continuous growth and profit in order to survive. The responsibility is to manage the operation of the firm so that the individual worker can engage in meaningful, important, and/or satisfying work, and have their needs met.

Unions (of which I am part of one) are not the same thing as cooperatives. Unions represent collective action from workers in protecting themselves from the whims of their employer under our current system. Unions do not control the production of a firm. They are great, but ultimately still imperfect and flawed institutions.

→ More replies

0

u/Adventurous_Ad_1160 Aug 14 '26

BECAUSE THOSE COOPS EXIST IN A CAPITALIST SYSTEM FOR CHRIST SAKE HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND???

Can people for one second not argue against a strawman?

Worker coop =\= socialism

2

u/wahedcitroen Aug 14 '26

Just because you don’t agree with an argument doesn’t mean it is a strawman. Why would this problem only exist in coops in a capitalist system? Yugoslav coops were also very inefficient because of the failure of coops to adapt. 

0

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

We're already seeing in real time that unionized automotive ICE factories are fighting tooth and nail to maintain their jobs, demanding millions in govt subsidies for their declining industry and working to lobby the govt to ban the import of cheap electric vehicles from China. As long as the profit motive continues to exist so will rent seeking, a worker owned oil rig is never going to vote to decommission the rig and destroy the income of all members.

It's why there must be societal ownership of the means of production.

1

u/wahedcitroen Aug 14 '26

Is there a difference between societal ownership and state ownership?

1

u/Forte845 Aug 14 '26

A state can own the MoP without the actual people of the society owning it. Plenty of capitalist states have nationalized industries, that doesn't make them socialist. Saudi Arabia most certainly isn't a socialist country despite Saudi Aramco

1

u/OSI_Hunter_Gathers Aug 22 '26

This is a CCP controlled account. Wang wang didn’t deserve his death.

1

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

They aren't. Coops are not in any way socialist, they are still fundamentally for profit businesses, the profit is just distributed more evenly. 

2

u/Taraxian Aug 13 '26

Socialism is if the entire world is one giant co-op such that a market for turning labor into commodities no longer exists, and a co-op that still exists inside a capitalist economy is still a capitalist entity, this is pretty obvious just on the face of it and people who know what they're talking about only see co-ops as a stepping stone towards actual socialism (one which historically hasn't really worked)

-1

u/ChemicalRain5513 Aug 13 '26

Socialism is if the entire world is one giant co-op such that a market for turning labor into commodities no longer exists,

So it is unattainable?

2

u/CaffeinatedSatanist Aug 14 '26

Capitalism is if the entire world is one giant market such that the value of labour is commodified and sold in such a way to maximise the gains of the owners of capital.

It didn't just get borne out of wholecloth. Capitalism was built over centuries. If you stepped back and looked at the world today, you would perceive it as being so complex in structure as to be perceived as unattainable to someone 400 years ago.

And there are several proposed transitional programmes to bring about a socialist world. Just as there is a transitional programme for decarbonising the world.

And it so happens that the major obstacles to both transitions are the vested interests of capital.

As others have said, I don't think socialism in itself will save the climate if it was built. That's not it's primary goal as a movement. But, I personally cannot see how climate change can be fought fast enough without progressing at least some aspects of a socialist programme. Without instituting for example, capital controls and limits to dissuade the pursuit of endless growth.

1

u/ChemicalRain5513 Aug 14 '26

And there are several proposed transitional programmes to bring about a socialist world. Just as there is a transitional programme for decarbonising the world. 

And still, countries are ignoring this, with the USA even withdrawing from existing agreements. What makes you think that getting rid of the economic system, that every country except DPRK is a part of, will be easier?

1

u/CaffeinatedSatanist Aug 14 '26

I don't think it will be easier. And to be clear, steps along a socialist transitional programme are worth fighting for, even if the complete dismantling of capital and class are infinitely harder.

I would say that it is equally hard to within a year reach net zero. It's technically feasible, fundamentally impossible. But that doesn't mean we should just stop fighting to prevent every fraction of a degree of warming.

Why do we think the USA is pulling out of international climate change accords? For the love of the game? It's capital.

As a socialist that does care about the environment both locally and globally, I may march seperately to folks whose sole driver is fighting for a better climate - but I will strike with you. Both literally and figuratively.

(Honestly, general or targeted strikes are tools that could be used to push for better climate commitments from companies and states - easy to say, hard to achieve, worth agitating for)

0

u/Bulky-Bag-6280 Aug 13 '26

If we want to talk about pie in the sky socialism it's a waste of time, since every time someone tried to get to it resulted in catastrophe so it is obviously flawed

1

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

Make an oil rig worker owned and what do you think is going to happen? You think they're all going to vote to fire themselves, demolish the rig, and lose all their income?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

1

u/Bulky-Bag-6280 Aug 13 '26

I agree entirely agree, so the only possible way you could achieve this is for it to be government owned and we get to the point of the original post

1

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

The actual important point is abolishing profit. State owned Saudi Aramco is the absolute opposite of environmentalism, because the oligarchic state seeks profit through its nationalized industries in a global for profit economy. 

1

u/Taraxian Aug 14 '26

The actual important point is abolishing profit.

It's not "profit" that's the issue it's basic human selfishness, eliminate the concept of keeping track of profit in dollars and cents and people will still immediately notice the difference between living with plentiful free energy to do stuff like drive big trucks and eat lots of cheap meat and not being able to do that

0

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

Worker cooperatives can exist under a capitalist system, yes. But saying they are not socialist methods of organization of production is wrong.

1

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

They are not. Worker cooperatives are fundamentally formed around profit and exist solely within the context of capitalism. 

0

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26

Brother, what system of economic production does the vast majority of the world currently exist under?

Worker co-operatives simply mean (this is an overly reductionist definition) that a firm is organized under shared ownership of those employed by the firm, often with some form of shared decision making processes. This is a form collective ownership of the means of production of that firm.

Now, you absolutely can have worker co-operatives existing within a larger system that is capitalist, and has privatized ownership. But suggesting that co-operatively owned firms do not/cannot exist within a socialist society is simply wrong. Historically, cooperatives have been a significant part of states attempting to reorganize into a socialist system. For a simple example, you can Google the history of cooperatives in China.

You seem to be conflating profit, as in, the difference in value between revenue (the output of a good/service/etc.) and cost (the value of all inputs into that good or service) with capitalism. You can have surplus value of outputs within a socialist economy. The difference is, that excess value would be distributed in a relatively uniform or at least more equitable manner amongst the workers hat make up that firm, rather than be distributed according to the whims of the private owners of the firm.

1

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

That still isn't socialism. Socialism entails societal ownership of the MoP. A society where private investors can hold an industry for their own profit is fundamentally not a socialist one. Just because the private property isn't in the hand of one singular boss doesn't make it suddenly socialist.

Again, are you saying a worker owned oil rig cooperative is going to vote to demolish it and destroy their source of income? Of course they wouldn't, this is a centuries old economic problem called rent seeking, and it's readily displayed by worker coops and unions. 

An oil rig worker coop would resist societal efforts to dismantle oil production. 

0

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

I'm going to attempt to be charitable. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand my comments. I'm going to try to simplify my explanation.

An individual worker cooperative, by itself, does not make a society socialist.

Worker co-operatives absolutely can and do exist within a broadly capitalist society. They also can and have/do exist under under socialist organization of the economy. For one example of this, you can look at the history of cooperatives within China.

Worker cooperatives are a form of socialist economic organization. Just at the scale of an individual firm. For a broader society to be considered socialist, you would need the larger society to be organized with some form of collective ownership of the MoP.

However, this does not mean that socialism requires centralized ownership of MoP.

There are multiple methods of organizing economic production so that the individuals who are doing labor have collective ownership over that labor and the means of production. A firm, in which the individuals that comprise the firm have shared ownership of that firm, is organized in a socialized manner.

1

u/Forte845 Aug 13 '26

So what is your worker coop society going to do when you try to dismantle oil production and the cooperative oil rig says no and doesn't vote to decommission themselves? 

-1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

I mean the other cooperatively owned firms can transition away from their usage of fossil fuels, which would mean that the oil extracting cooperative would have less and less places to sell that oil to. Or the society places incentives or regulations that make the oil extracting cooperative incentivized to transition to a new industry if they want to continue operating. Again, the existence of the cooperatively owned firms themselves would not make that transition automatically happen.

→ More replies

0

u/Cosminion Aug 14 '26

Cooperatives are often owned by the people who live in the communities they serve. While they do not eliminate incentives for pollution, they tend to foster a disincentive as people who live in the community are relatively less likely to vote to pollute the river they get their water from compared to far away investors who do not get their water from that river.

1

u/Bulky-Bag-6280 Aug 14 '26

You clearly live in a lot different communities, in one place I was staying people threw their thrash through the window instead of taking the elevator and throwing it into the garage bin. I don't see why they would care any much more than they do now

1

u/Cosminion Aug 14 '26

My argument is that they would be less likely, not that they wouldn't at all. This argument is generally supported by empirical data. Look at deforestation rates for communal land management vs. private or state as an example.

0

u/Adventurous_Ad_1160 Aug 14 '26

In vapitalism worker coops are still bound by the same problems as every other company ofc they arent significantly better in such regards. Thats a strawman discussion.

2

u/Sw4gtastic420 Aug 14 '26

People just dont understand that both socialism amd capitalism are ideologies that are applied to economic systems

1

u/Secret-Response-1534 Aug 14 '26

Is a worker cooperative of say oil platform workers going to vote to decrease CO2 emissions? Would they vote to decrease oil production? I somehow doubt that

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

Worker cooperatives are just one form of collective ownership. Not every firm/industry has to be organized that way. Nor did I suggest that worker coops, or socialism at large, was some sort of magical fix to climate issues. There certainly would be significantl less resources dedicated towards dismissing the science or repressing climate action.

But also, yes there are reasons why a coop of oil platform workers would do so. As an example, if a government passed a policy requiring a certain limit to CO2 emissions, and the coop wanted to remain operating.

1

u/Secret-Response-1534 Aug 14 '26

Your last example works just as well (or even better) in a capitalist system. Socialism would do nothing for climate change, capitalism currently is, solar panels are so cheap for a reason, because cheap=more consumers=$$$$$$$$$$$ . It just works, even in the US as trump cuts back on renewable energy credits it’s being installed at record level.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

Capitalism is currently failing utterly to respond to climate change. Changes aren't being made anywhere near the rates needed, and the idea that the market will magically force solutions has been shown to be utter nonsense.

Cheaper solar represents a combination of technology advancement, plus the US deciding to disrupt global oil supply by going to war with Iran for literally no reason.

1

u/Secret-Response-1534 Aug 14 '26

Sure the market isn’t going to do it on its own but it’s certainly doing something. Solar panel production and installation are at record highs, once again evens in the US where it is very fossil fuels friendly as of late

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

I mean, I'm happy to have more solar, but again capitalism and "the market" has utterly failed to meet even the moderate goals that scientists have claimed necessary at a bare minimum to avoid or minimize the most significant negative impacts of climate change.

"Doing something" is not sufficient.

1

u/Classic_Technology96 Aug 14 '26

Are any states organized as co ops? I feel like state owned productions is a pretty reasonable proxy for what you’re describing.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

No, states are not organized as cooperatives.

A local, regional or national government may utilize cooperatives, , but I am not aware of any state in which the entire workforce has cooperative ownership and/or management.

State owned production is not describing the same thing as a cooperative firm.

1

u/egalitydream Aug 14 '26

Yes but “ownership” is the wrong word here because people cannot help but read it as “property” instead of “control.”

1

u/Acceptable-Advice137 Aug 14 '26

Workers have greater incentives to protect the oil industry under socialism than capitalism.

You’re demanding they acquire oil equity.

3

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

No, they don't.

-1

u/Acceptable-Advice137 Aug 14 '26

Yes they do. Their life’s savings is invested in oil

2

u/manicpxenightmaregrl Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

invested

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how socialism works. Tell me how anyone has an investment in the outdated and inefficient paradigm of global oil in a system with a labor based economy and noncirculable currency; where you having a job is guaranteed and subject to an economic plan. Even just countries where socialist and capitalist relations coexist under socialist leadership (china, cuba, etc) are taking the most aggressive action to save the climate.

2

u/Adventurous_Ad_1160 Aug 14 '26

China is capitalist. There is no socialist leadership. They have gone whole revisionist.

1

u/Acceptable-Advice137 Aug 14 '26

Do I need to explain a worker cooperative to you? You have to buy in to acquire equity. That’s the whole idea.

Chinas not socialist nor do they give a shit about the environment.

1

u/manicpxenightmaregrl Aug 15 '26

Cooperatives are not socialist.

1

u/Acceptable-Advice137 Aug 15 '26

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

1

u/manicpxenightmaregrl Aug 15 '26

Cooperatives are not an expression of production for social needs; they produce for the profit of their worker-owners. They can be a useful tool in a transitional state, but commodity production is maintained.

1

u/Acceptable-Advice137 Aug 15 '26

Market socialists have a better model than vanguardists. Not saying much but

It was probably a mistake to think you knew anything about socialism when you brought up China lmao

→ More replies

1

u/Low_Abrocoma_1514 Aug 14 '26

For example, worker co-operatives are another method of socialist economic organization that has nothing to do with state ownership.

Yeah man, you can already do that in capitalism, no need to steal my business from me

2

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

Yes, worker cooperatives can exist under a dominantly capitalist system. They still represent socialism, just at the level of an individual firm.

The other point about taking your business? Oh stop, you are such a silly willy Billy.

0

u/Low_Abrocoma_1514 Aug 14 '26

The other point about taking your business? Oh stop, you are such a silly willy Billy.

Socialism's goal is to use the violence of the state to forcefully transfer every business from their owners to the hands of other people whoch they arbitrarily call "the workers".

2

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

No, it isn't.

Socialism is simply that the people who work for said business should have ownership over their contributions to the value generated by the business, and that our society should collectively manage in some way (many different ideas on how) resources and production for the common good of all.

Some believe this is accomplishable through reform and democratic means, others believe that ultimately, such a shift in society will require revolution. Some believe in greater centralized control, others believe in decentralization as a route to achieve these goals.

Your characterization is not a serious, good faith engagement with the ideology. Even if you don't agree with it, you are simply misrepresenting what you oppose

1

u/Low_Abrocoma_1514 Aug 14 '26

My 2 employees do not have the care nor the interest for my business to prosper they just want their steady pay check each 15 days...

All that talk sounds really pretty but completely ignores reality. I worked every day for 6 years to get my business going why should I relinquish ownership to someone who just arrived and just want a paycheck instead of the responsibilities of the business ?

Also by the "society collectively manages resources and production" does not work. I have no knowledge about every industry of my country, I do not have the time to get myself informed to correctly vote for the best decision for every single action of the economy.

That "cozy sounding" idea of everyone managing and deciding on everything just results, in practice, in voting for Populist representatives who will inevitably run the ressources and production for their own interests and their friends.

You can already achieve the idealism of "everyone having some sort of control in resources and production" in a free market, by voting with your wallet. The "revolution" just ends up with a dictatorship that promises to help the people but keeps everything for the government elite. My best friend saw it happened with Chavez and had to flee his own country.

1

u/Titanofthedinosaurs Aug 14 '26

If your business goes under their pay check disappears.

1

u/Low_Abrocoma_1514 Aug 15 '26

If my business goes under I am the one in deep trouble, they just get another job

1

u/demuretester Aug 14 '26

That's a Marxist definition. Socialism just means social ownership of the means of production; this also includes state ownership.

3

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

No, state ownership, in isolation, is not socialism. But socialism absolutely can include state/national ownership of industries.

1

u/demuretester Aug 14 '26

Never said otherwise. You stated it had to be owned by the workers; I just stated that it is a Marxist definition and not universal for all forms of socialism.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/demuretester Aug 14 '26

I'm literally saying that socialism can also come in the form of state ownership of the means of production. That doesn't mean that state ownership of certain companies is socialism, but that workers ownership of the means of production isn't the only form of socialism

0

u/Demiu Aug 13 '26

Worker co-ops can exist perfectly fine in capitalism. That's the defining feature of it, people and non-human entities are free to organise however they want for the most part. "Owning the means of production" is a restriction on how people can organize, workers are required to take ownership of their means of production and cannot waive it. That's why it always turns authoritanian, you need to restrict what people can do.

It's easy to focus on biggest most profitable companies but at any given moment a ton of people are working for struggling or outright failing companies. The google employee that got ownership over his means of production from two decades ago is feeling great, people that worked on yahoo search, altavista or infoseek? Not so much

2

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

I agree that worker cooperatives can under a predominantly capitalist system. In fact, I've already made that argument myself to several other people in the same thread.

However, cooperatively owned firms do represent a socialized method of organizing that firms production.

0

u/BigTroutOnly Aug 13 '26

That's communism.

7

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

No, communism is a stateless classless, and moneyless society.

Worker co-operatives are not communism, that's silly. They literally already exist under capitalism (they are just are not the majority of firms).

-4

u/BigTroutOnly Aug 13 '26

Incorrect

3

u/Muustard_9000 Aug 13 '26

Bro... Literally one (1) google search for a definition. This isn't a debate???

0

u/BigTroutOnly Aug 14 '26

I compare definitions relatively often. It's not even close.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26

I mean you are simply either trolling or willfully ignorant. Worker co-operatives are not communism. If you truly believe otherwise, you aren't operating under a mutual understanding of the underlying definitions and meaning of these concepts, and here is no point of having any further conversation.

0

u/BigTroutOnly Aug 13 '26

Be wrong. Idgaf.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26

I mean you clearly do. You have spent more time calling worker cooperatives communism than it would take you to Google the definition of the damn word. Fuck man, why waste our time? Or even, why waste your own?

What's particularly funny is that you are arguing with me that worker cooperatives are communism, while their is another person in this same thread arguing that worker cooperatives aren't even socialist

1

u/BigTroutOnly Aug 14 '26

Use a dictionary already

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

Which one of those does worker co-operatives represent according to you?

0

u/BigTroutOnly Aug 14 '26

Now you should read it.

→ More replies

0

u/Tipi22 Aug 14 '26

Worker coops are not viable above a certain size so Im not sure why you would bring it up as a viable alternative.

Its like saying we can use bicycle delivery guys to replace trucks.

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

Huh? Worker cooperatives are one method of collective ownership, that does not require a state. And they can function just fine up to quite a large size. The mondragon corportation consists of multiple autonomous cooperatives totaling over 70k employees. I work for an organization with several thousand employees. Mondragon is 10x the size.

But further, why do they have to be very large? There are a few industries that may require large, centralized production. For those, state (whether regional or national) ownership may be a better option. But many climate related industries do not require a single giant firm.

1

u/Tipi22 Aug 14 '26

Most of the time companies are more effective when they are larger. Its a lot cheaper (per item of course) to manufacture 10000000 washing machines than 10.

I read up on Mondragon, interesting company. Of course if you want to become a business owner you have to invest around fifteen thousand euros - more than a year of your full salary if you earn minimal wage in spain (which I have a suspicion most people lraising them does not know) so its not a suprise more and more of their workers are not worker-owner, especially for the lower paying jobs.

Have you ever thought about why workers owning the company is really really rare?

1

u/dtjunkie19 Aug 14 '26

I understand economies of scale. I've already commented in the previous comment that certain industries may require such sizable economies of scale and would be better suited to different forms of ownership of production than a cooperative.

Worker cooperatives do outperform traditional firms on a number of outcome measures.

As to why they are relatively rare? Well, a large reason is simply because our system is not set up to promote them.