What better time than the day after an early spring ground hog day to decide
and announce the formation of a new political party, The Cooperative Socialist
Party.
"Whoa!" you say, "socialism in America, no way."
Relax, this will not be a party of under educated unionists trying to 
dictate their program on your back.

89 responses total.

   What will it be, then?

Over-educated aristocrats trying to dictate their program on our back?

Pinhead with the ideals of Noot, the attitude of Adolf and the bark of
Jimmi Karter!

What about me, I want a party that stands for peace, love and freedom from
depression, now if you can get everybody to agree on these you have a party!

Or how about the Stealth party, No name, No platform, No spokesman, and
everyeverybody votes.

The first focus of the Coop Socialists is to remove the barriers to, and 
create tools for, the organization of co-ops and ESOPs (Employee Stock 
Ownership Programs).  These organizations are democratic by definition.
Where do you get this "aristocrat" business, ajax?  Co-ops are strictly
voluntary and non-coercive as opposed to old style (and especially 
"prolitarian oriented") socialism, which did try to push a program down
peoples throats.  This is why I chose the term "cooperative."  Co-ops build
self responsibility and taking care of business rather than "demand it of the
government" mentality.  There is no "dictation of a program"  on anyone's
back in my schemes.  I should certainly hope that you have cleaned that from
my writings on energy saving and environmental responsibility and public 
transportation use by now.  Back to "aristocrat."  Perhaps I am a '"natural
aristocrat <Bill says, modestly>.  I feel that I am talented, conscientious,
ethical, and hard working.  What's wrong with that?  Are you a "mean middle"
no-mind mediocrocrat," the type of person that makes the majority in 
American politics today?

Just a joke chi1.  "Over-educated aristocrat" is as diametrically opposed
to "under-educated unionist" as I could think of, and all you said in #0
is that this *won't* be a party of them.
 
Also, the "middle" makes up the majority in almost any political climate,
somewhat by definition.  (Ok, theoretically you could have an extreme left
and extreme right with no center, but it's awfully unlikely).
 
Btw, I bet Marx would have considered himself a "neutral aristocrat" too.
Nothing wrong with that; people should try to think of societal improvements.
So what "barriers" to ESOPs and co-ops do you think need removal?  Both are
legal, and as American Airlines (I think it was them) recently showed, ESOPS
occasionally occur as a result of market forces.

First of all, banks are very reluctant to loan money to co-ops.  That doesn't
mean that I want to create a federal mandate or set-aside for bank loans to
co-ops.  What I would like is for credit unions, which are co-op thrift 
institutions, to be legally allowed to make business loans to other co-ops.
As it stands now, to protect banks turf of making business loans, credit 
unions are barred from making any kind of business loan, even to other co-ops.
The net result is that credit unions loan out most of their funds to individual
-s for car loans.  Aside from removing barriers, I would have the government
act as a clearing house and facilitator for co-ops and their formation.  I'm
sure the US Dept. of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service does this for
farmers.  I want an Urban Cooperative Extension Service.  Other things:
Enabling legislation to allow cities, states, transit authorities, housing
authorities, etc. to be part owner/members of various kinds of co-ops;
Federal loan guarantees for bank loans to co-ops; well, that's enough for now.
I'll think of some more later and post them.

That's ludicrous. Banks are businesses. Businesses exist to make money. If
banks are very reluctant to loan money to co-ops, it probably means that 
co-ops have a very high failure rate. Implementing federal loan guarantees
means every single taxpayer in this country will be subsidizing high-risk
loans to co-ops. Bill is essentially saying that banks are reluctant to
loan money to co-ops (ie: co-ops have high failure rates), so taxpayers
should subsidize high-risk co-ops. 

As far as I'm concerned, that's another way for a liberal to say, "Let's
fuck over the taxpayers again -- let's force people at gun-point to 
hand over money to the lazy, the stupid, and the inefficient." Why don't we
just cut taxes so active, intelligent and efficient business owners can
keep more of their profits to re-invest in the economy? Instead of leaving
money to their rightful owners, we steal it from them to distribute to
inefficient people. That's really smart...

        Allowing credit unions to loan to co-ops sounds ok as far as it goes,
        but does that really require a political party esp one with the loaded
        name socialist in it?  If you want to be *politicaly* smart call it
        progressive "  "
(fill in the blank).

Re:#8: Rogue, why must you call a group of people who want to organize a co-op
"lazy, stupid,, inefficient?"  And on the other hand, assume that a business-
man is "intelligent, efficient?"  Why do you assume there is a higher  failure
rate for co-ops than capitalist businesses?  Are you incapable of conceiving
that banks may have a bias against, or outright desire to throttle an 
economic entity that is not based on greed and exploitation of minimum wage
workers.  It doesn't take a whole bunch of smarts to start a small bsns and
hire a couple young people and min. wage while you reap the real benefits.
I'm curious, Rogue, just what is your occupation?

My previous response should have referenced #7, and I want to further address
Rogue's concerns:  As far as creating a liability for the government, and
thus ultimately the taxpayers by guaranteeing bank loans to co-ops, there are
ways to gauge to abilities of the people leading the co-op and the likelihood
of success of the business concept and implimentation plan.  You may say that
this is just creating more gov. bureauocracy, but it takes work to do the 
job of governing, and this is a worthy cause.

Ok, the real #8, Raven: First of all co-ops are socialism: voluntary, 
non-coercive, non-governmental socialism.  Secondly, I advocate a limited
involvement of government in economic enterprize, such as I mentioned above,
cities being part of the membership in co-ops.  Thus a co-op owned by a 
bunch of community groups to build low-cost housing, or components for building
, could have an investment from, and involvement by, several cities, such as
Detroit, Cleveland, Cinci, Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis.  There are
other economic functions that it makes sense for gov.s, even the fed gov to
run rather than private bsns.  I know that sounds godawful, but this sort of
"state capitalism" works in France and elsewhere.  Groupe Bull, the French 
company that bought up Zenith Data Systems, (I'm this minute working on my
ZDS 386 Totable) is partially owned by the French gov.  Certainly before 
undertaking this I would undertake civil service reform and weed out the
dummies and teat-hangers and obstructionists from the Fed Gov.  This latter
desperately needs to be done anyway.  These gov economic entities would not
be Soviet style dumping grounds to maintain full employment.  They would be
semi-autonomous corporations, sometimes in partnerships with private capital.
In Europe, the civil service is presitgeous and staffed by able people.  The
republicans don't want this in the US, because they just want to complain
about the government and keep it from doing its job, except when it comes
to subsidies and services for profiteers.  Greed lives.

In his abrasive way, rogue is saying that the Loan Guarantees you request
would not be needed if banks would be willing to loan to co-ops.
Rogue believes that they are unwilling to make these loans for a valid
reason. I agree with that. Banks are not unwilling to make a profit by 
lending to anyone. They are very shy of making risky loans, though, and
quite justifiably.

So the conclusion seems inescapable that these loans you wish to guarantee
are risky. Well, maybe not inescapable, you seem toave come up with a 
conspiracy theory that banks are the bad guys out to throttle coops because
they aren't greedily exploiting minimum wage workers. That's poppycock.

mea culpa

There is an undocumented premise here - asserted but not supported. Are
banks "reluctant" to loan to cooperatives? Banks loan to businesses
on the basis of their business plan, and a cooperative can have a 
business plan as good as any "for profit" business - better, in fact,
since they usually don't have any nonparticipating shareholders that expect 
big returns on their investments.

        I know what co-ops are about having been involved with them on and off
for about 10 years.  What I'm saying is that if you call any political movement
socalist you are making a *strategic* mistake. You can work for the same
ideals,many of which are good ones like decentrilization, consumer empowerment,
supporting the growth of orgasnic foods etc under a differnet rubric.  If you
call  yourself socalist very few people will even listen, yes that's sad, but
it's also the truth.

Yea! New Name: Co-op Solutions Party.  No mention of the s word on the 
platform.
I has a nice ring because america craves solutions to its nagging and even
scarey problems.

This response has been erased.

hmmm, that's funny.  i thought the credit union *was* a co-op.  i've
gotten loans there for co-ops before.

The Public Food Co-op?  The Food Coop? (That's what I always call it anyway,
and it has a memorable and homey ring to it.)

   I haven't thought of that in a while now, but Valerie is right about
the word "People's".  Here in Ann Arbor, there is a long history revolving
around "people" and "human" such that those names turn people off.  I know
my mother harbors bad feelings about the coops, and I'm not sure why.
Possibly the connection with things like the "people's ballroom", a dance-hall
project that seems to raise the ire of a lot of people in town.

   As far as the party goes Bill, it's interesting.

r
#9: Banks are in business to make money. Good businessmen do not let their
    emotions or prejudices affect their business decisions. No serious bank
    would not lend to a co-op, an individual or any entity because of an
    irrational belief. 

    I own the largest computer company in Washtenaw and its surrounding 
    counties. We did $5 million last year (our first year in a commercial
    location) and we're going to do at least $7-$10 million this year. 

    BTW, here's how my logic goes. You state that banks do not like lending
    to co-ops. My business sense tells me that the reason is because co-ops
    have higher failure rates than traditional businesses. You seem to believe
    it's because there's a conspiracy or because banks act like irrational
    six year olds. Because co-ops have a higher failure rate than traditional
    businesses, holding all else equal, it is reasonable to believe that 
    either: 1) Co-ops are fundamentally not as efficient or effective as
    traditional businesses; and/or 2) Co-op management is consistently less
    competent than management of traditional companies.

#10: Answer one question: Why not just lower taxes and let the already
     successful businessmen expand their businesses?

#12: We agree again? You're gaining more sense every day. :-) 

     The fact of the matter is there is a reason for everything in business.
     My success in business is based upon my incessant analysis of those
     reasons. Those who have conspiracy theories for everything and blame
     "greed" for everything are the same people who will never succeed in
     business because they do not understand how people function -- business
     is fundamentally just interaction between people. And we are supposed to
     be giving loan guarantees to these people? Holy shit... Let's just 
     burn the money instead. At least that way we will curb inflation.

There is a possibility that co-ops are not as "efficient" as capitalist 
companies.  A good co-op does not try to imitate the manipulative and "let's
see how much I can squeeze out of my employees" attitude of most bnsnpeeps.
You work hard all right, hard at seeing how hard you can get your employees to
work, ol' stress generator.  And don't think it doesn't affect you.  Co-ops ddo
 have some offsetting advantages, such as the fact that they're not so
alienated and thus genuinely motivate employees as no MBA with his/her
"organizational psychology" can.  As far as being less well managed, I guess
you share the  same biases that banks and most bosses share.  The institutions
in this  economy will not advance (or even hire) someone who is not greed
oriented. They have an ethic that is, in fact, anti-ethical: make money at any
cost; motivate by selfishness; manipulate for employee identification w. the
company and employee belief that the company "cares" about the employee: the
company doesn't give a good rats ass-f..k about the employee, except to the
extent that his/her condition affects the profitability of the company and
maintain- ance of cooperative employees (cooperative in the sense of "we do the
 operating and you do the co-).

And you say we have biases??

This is a political question. Does society want to have the economy run in 
an efficient capitalistic way, or in an inefficient (but gentle)
socialistic way? If captialism were as evil as you paint it, Bill, 
many people would be on your side. There are abuses, I'll admit, but
our society has by and large come down on the side of capitalism.

I am thankful for that.

My company treats me in a non-exploitative fashion, Many others do, too.
Those that don't are probably breaking the law.
In my opinion, paying the minimum wage isn't being exploitative - it
is offering low-end employment opportunities.

Yea, I'm sorry to sound so harsh.  Diplomacy is not my strong point.  I too am
turned off by idiologues, who ruined any chance for meaningful change in the
60's by being too abrasive, confrontational, and demanding too much.  I 
realize that the present system is not all the evil, but alot of "people 
handling" goes on, beyond what is necessary.  It is not necessarily so, that
co-ops are less efficient than private bsns.  It's unfortunate that so many
co-ops have been by idiologues who bind things down w. political struggles,
trying to impose their idea of utopia or "justice."  Some other co-ops are
started by well meaning but inexperienced people with a worthy idea but lacking
the ability to effectuate it.  But that's sort of the underlying assumption of
The Co-op Solutions Party: Take the fear, apprehension and reluctance to get
involved away from the middle and upper middle classes, the "able," as it were,
and recruit them into making a better world than just living as passive 
consumers whose work life is often wasted in misdirected and often destructive
persuits.  Yuppie Socialism, in the original, non pejorative definition of
the word as coined by Gary Hart, bright, able Young Urban Professionals.
It's a shame the term Yuppie has been smeared to refer to business lizards,
but then, so has the term "professional" been usurped by salesmen, sleazy 
consultants, and "investment advisors."  I can too spell "ideologues:" we do 
get tired.

#22: I didn't assert that co-ops have crappy management. Read what I said not
     what you wished I had said. You provided a "fact" -- banks do not like
     lending money to co-ops. From *your* fact, I suggested that the reason
     probably is that co-ops have a higher failure rate -- banks do not make
     arbitrary decisions like six year olds. If co-ops have a higher failure
     rate, I suggested two reasons why, and one of them being that the
     management of co-ops may be consistently less competent than the 
     management of traditional companies.

     If you think my reasoning is crap, point it out. Using the word "greedy"
     over and over again proves nothing.

One presumes you also oppose federal loan guarantees to students, since 
they are another intervention in the banking process, and probably would
like to see FDIC et al abolished entirely, since that's heavy interference
in ways banks can run their cusiness in a fashion that makes anything
about piddly loans to co-ops rather insignificant.  Yes?

Well, Rogue, old boy (apt name, Rogue), it is possible to set up a very
vigorous qualification process.  I've got too much Scotch blood in me to
waste money.  That's why I like co-ops, because they eliminate rip-off artists
like you.

I agree with rogue; if they were good loans, banks would fight to make them.
Fed-backed student (and business) loans are welfare.  They're fine, but why
do co-ops need special welfare not provided for by the SBA (Small Biz Admin)?
 
Chi1, you mention wanting a non-coercive, non-government system of socialism.
Wouldn't fed-backed loans involve the gov't, and coerce us all to subsidize
co-ops?  Also, I don't think *not* providing fed-backed loans is a barrier.
The only barrier you gave is credit unions allegedly can't make business
loans, and I bet there are more reasons than "banks protecting their turf."
 
Also, what are your thoughts on ESOPs?  Most workers can already purchase
stock in their employer's company (as most people work for publicly traded
companies).  They usually choose not to.  UAW employees could have bought
Ford several times over, but chose other uses for their disposable income.
Many big companies even offer stock discounts to employees.

I'm not real knowledgible on ESOPs.  I do know that up to the present they're
usually used by highly distressed companies to win wage concessions fr the
employees  and bail out the pre-existing owners.  They are often unhappy 
because the net power somehow ends up not being in the hands of the employees,
and conflict continues.  Probably the most famous ESOP is Wierton Steel in 
Wierton, Ohio, on the Ohio River where W.Virginia protrudes a northerly finger
between Ohio and Pennsylvania.  United Airlines may or may  not be officially
classified as an ESOP.  Perhaps a new legal model would have to be created.
Basically, I'm seeking an alternative to a "strict definition" worker co-op,
because co-ops are one person- one vote, and I feel votes should be weighted
toward the professionals and management within the company in order for it to
succeed in the competative economy and not be ruined by ill-informed desire 
for "more & more" that characterizes union shops.

Amazingly, I find Rogue's position to be more sound on a rational basis, while
willie's position is well argued, but still tainted with an emotionality which
usurps the position he supports.
        I do not like the concept that business operates on a cutthroat basis,
but especially in an industry like computer hardware retail, you have to eat
or be eaten.  My idealism suggests that we should work cooperatively to 
achieve greater social ends, but as long as there exist people who would take
"unfair" advantage of other under that system, then that system cannot work.
Once one person steps beyond narrow bounds of propriety in a large cooperative
structure, the choices left are either sacrifice of liberty in the name of
enforced cooperation, or the total breakdown of the cooperative structure.
        Sorry, but that's the reality.  People just will *not* stand still and
let one rogue (sorry :) member of the community thrive at the expense of the
rest without attempting to either destroy the offender or partake of the
spoils.
        I work for a large corporation which provides numerous incentives for
it's employees to drive the success of the company.  Only some of those
incentives materially affect the bank balances of the employees.  It simply
makes good business sense to make your employees as happy as you can without
sacrificing the bottom line to do it.

        Co-op management by its very nature is less efficient than more
traditional (read: hierarchical) means.  Imagine comparing an executive order
to an average committee meeting.  This is not to say that there are not other,
better options in the middle of this range, but any co-op without extra-
ordinarily clearly focused goals is at a disadvantage, especially if speed
is essential, which at times it can be.
        As far as management competence goes, most managers will gravitate
toward work environments which will reward them for their competence as
managers.  Traditional structures are at present better set up to do that,
so by Darwinian means, the traditional structures tend to end up with the
more competent management.  At the other end of the spectrum is government,
which rewards everybody, regardless of competence, and thus chokes itself
with flotsam.

BTW, my employer offers a stock option plan, and the company is non-union,
neither is it in any sort of bailout situation.  It is simply a way to
bring the employees into a closer relationship with the success of the
company, for better or for worse.

This response has been erased.

Many of the arguments above seem to say, "Banks lend only to good
credit risks.  Banks will not lend to coops.  Therefore, coops are
poor credit risks."  The flaw in this logic is obvious.  It assumes
that banks are willing to loan to _anyone_, as long as they are good
risks.  I contend that this is not so.  Banks are run very
conservatively.  Banks lend to those with good collateral or good
repayment history.  They generally will not speculate on unknown
borrowers, even though it could well be that such borrowers would be
better than average risks.

Re #21:  The characterization of businesses as "efficient" is laughable.

Re #23:  I'm glad you feel the "Big C" has treated you in a
"non-exploitative fashion".  Not all of us agree with you.
The characterization of capitalism as "efficient" is laughable.

I wouldn't even call capitalism "benign".  Don't get me wrong.
As a middle-aged, white, American male, capitalism has served
me personally pretty well.  But let's face it:  millions are
trampled by it every day.

Sounds like survival of the fittest to me. Sure, some people get
trampled. Capitalism isn't for everyone. There *isn't* a "catch-all"
governmental system that lets everyone live like kings.

#26: I see a fundamental difference in business and education. For our
     society to claim that it offers "equal opportunity", our society must
     help its citizens acquire education. After that, it's a free for all.

#32: The greatest businessmen in the world do not let emotions and 
     prejudices affect their decisions. The Sam Waltons and Bill Gates will
     rarely let anything but reason affect their decisions. Sure, some local
     hillbilly banks might have some loan manager who lets his emotions 
     affect his decisions, but that's why he's working at a small hillbilly
     bank. The large players will rarely if ever let their emotions affect
     their decisions.

#33: Ummm. Hold on a sec. You don't make sense. If someone has no collateral
     and no repayment (credit) history, it is more likely that that person
     is a credit risk than someone with good collateral and good repayment
     history. Your contention is correct, but your conclusion absolutely
     incorrect.

     "Efficient" is relative. I know not all businesses are efficient.
     I deal with many kinds every day. I also deal with government agencies
     and educational institutions. The most inefficient businesses are more
     efficient than the most efficient government and educational 
     institutions. Inefficient businesses go bankrupt. Governments and 
     educational institutions never go bankrupt. Communist government-run
     corporations never go bankrupt. 

    Capitalism is not benign. Capitalism is neutral, like nature. Those who
     get stomped by it get stomped by it. No big deal.

Rogue, capitalism is not neutral, even w. the regulation superimposed by 
government.  It rewards cut-throatedness.  And most bsns people have no 
tolerance for inclusing in their business  or giving a loan to a person who 
is not money motivated and aggressive.  Aggressiveness has a high value  in
American society because of this, and it is dysfunctional.  Despite all the
manipulative attempts by bsns to put on a humane face, their underlying
aggressiveness destroys real efficiency.

I'd have to disagree with Rogue's assertion that "great businessmen do
not let emotions and prejudices affect their decisions".  'Course,
before getting too involved, I ought to point out one logical fallacy:
if Rogue's definition of "a great businessman" happens to include some
notion of non-emotionalism, then it might be true for him.  But I also
think he'd be denying the "greatness" of many other very successful
businessmen.  So it would be worth being very careful of the definition
of "a great businessman" first.  In my mind, a "great businessman" is
somebody who sees a commercial opportunity nobody else has seen, and
manages to take advantage of it in such a way as to make lots of money.
That's a pretty crude definition; perhaps somebody else can come up with
a more attractive definition.

My definition does cover most of the people I can think of who "ought"
to qualify.  Perhaps the pre-eminent examples I can think of are the
great railroad barons of the 19th century; who made a great deal of
money, were sometimes capable of great largess, and were also some of
the most hated men of their time.  The only name that comes to me is Lee
Stanford, of the C.P.; I'll have to find more names when I go home.
While these people made lots of money, they were *not* without emotion,
and they were just as capable of irrational behavior as anyone else.
Sometimes, it's difficult to tell if they were capable of great
foresight, or were just plain stubborn, or just plain lucky to be in the
right place at the right time.  Sometimes, I think, it was just all
three.

I don't think business is any different today.  MicroSoft, Apple
computer, Novell, and IBM are all run by people, and if you look at how
they operate, they're really not that much different than the great RR
empires of the 19th century.  The rules are a bit different, but people
are no different, and business is first and foremost about people.

#36: Aggressiveness destroys efficiency? Explain.

To put it simply, people don't perform well under the whip.  You can't be
creative, you can't even think straight under an authoritarian system.  And
people exerting blind authority can't think straight either, so the guy (woman)
giving orders  is telling the people to do the wrong thing, and the other 
victim (now, now, I'm not a screechy victimization freak, we're just talking
hyperbole here) is up tight and mis-follows his/her oers.  Maybe two wrongs
do make a right.
More later, possibly.  I know that was shooting from the hip, but I'm tired.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss