To the people bitching "this is socialism" yes it is. It is workers owning the means of production. It is also free market as worker owned firms will compete with each other. Think Coke and Pepsi being worker owned. I believe Benjamin Tucker called it Free Market Socialism.
Honestly I don't understand why so many are against free market. I think it is the only good thing with capitalism and the one which made it successfull.
Worker's coops are capitalists not socialists. This is just another example of socialists trying to pretend capitalist things are theirs. As long as these worker's coops are private, they are capitalists.
@@booketoiles1600 Capitalism is just a free market economy. Thats all capitalism is. Theres nothing else to it. If you like free market economies, you are a capitalist.
This is the core principle of socialism: "workers owning the means of production". Yes, that's what socialism is. Socialism is not about the STATE owning everything, it's about the WORKERS owning everything.
It's inspiring to see Niki Okuk advocating for cooperative economics, prioritizing community, sustainability, and resilience over profit. Her vision of working-class people organizing and owning the businesses they work for empowers them to make decisions and enjoy a better future.
Cubas average poverty rate is only 4%, North Korea was developing faster than South Korea until the soviets collapsed and lost their one big trading partner, and Venezuelas economy is going through s recession cause of a drop in oil prices
The Irish Commie depends what you consider poverty, I've been in Cuba, when you see doctors working night jobs as bartenders and driving around in 70 year old cars painted with house paint, high standards of living is not the first thing that comes to mind.
Brenda Rua how are they struggling under the thumb of the us, they were holding nuclear weapons for the soviets, so straight off the bat, pretty good reason for the us to restrict interaction with them. It's not like the US has an obligation to interact with them, and posing as a communist country so close to US soil was a threat to the US in the past and is a symbolic threat today, even at the moment, their interactions are being freed up. The hardships those people are dealing with are a result of communism, the repercussions incurred from the US are reactionary to that.
I study in Mondragon in a school that is a part of the cooperative, I go to grocery stores that are run by it, I buy tickets back to the USA to visit family in the travel agencies they own... everything from clothing stores to factories are part of this cooperative. There are a lot of benefits to it, but dont think that it doesn't have it's downsides and it is always isn't what is best for the small businesses and mom and pop stores. Here in Basque Country I think the model is certainly better than that presented in the USA, but it is not perfect.
Yes. Definitely it will have downsides. But these downsides are nothing that don't exist in traditional businesses. Furthermore, what matters is that it is an improvement over traditional businesses.
Not that it’s negates her argument just interesting to point out that after the October revolution in Russia, the sovnakom introduced the workers degree which did this exact thing
This is precisely the mentality that destroyed Detroit. It's what happens when you hand over power to unions. These unions were profit-maximizing organizations in bed with the government, with a vast army of lobbyists and voting power, enacting laws to allow them to monopolize labor.
There's no such thing as "slave wages". Slaves don't get a wage. The wages they paid in foreign countries were the going market wage, and the workers there were happy to take those jobs. Unions made American wages noncompetitive. Even if you wanted to work for less, you weren't allowed to.
"Straw man" - not sure that means what you think it means. You think adding all those factory jobs to central america actually left the workers worse off? If that were true, no one would accept those jobs. That work was better than what they had, so they accepted it. It's not slave labor; you're the one being intellectually dishonest, ya filthy commie. You people are so entitled, thinking that you're worth so much more than everyone else. You'd have them unemployed to prop up your own wages. Fortunately for everyone buying a car, the free market prevailed. Cry about it.
@@JoshSideris First, you just insult him. Second, that claim about South American workers fails in the face of history. People can be so desperate for jobs that they will compete with others, presenting lower wages than others. It happened in the US before the union. Unions also didn't kill the Detroit factories, greed did. An increase in profit that was spotted GM's CEO lead to the closing of several plants, and the relocation to South America and other Third World countries, not unions. If that was the case, Volvo wouldn't have factories in Sweden, due to a near 90% union rate, or in Germany, where unions are powerful. They took advantage of weak unions unable to do anything to strike.
So, since the people in the comment section have never taken a simple economics class: socialism is not communism. You can effectively have a mixture of capitalism and socialism with many successful examples such as norway, Sweden, Finnland and many others. Now i am from Switzerland and we are not as socialistic as norway, but compared to the US, we still have a lot of socialist elements, such as good education being free (if you are too poor to pay for it). Switzerland is rich and doing just fine. Our universities are owned by the state and therefore, not that expensive and if you can prove that you cannot afford it, the state will pay. Here, we don't have homeless people because they didn't get a chance in life. The few we do have are mostly do to other causes. If you are willing to work, you can get a decent job and even work your way up, it doesn't matter if your family is poor. But you need to put in effort, the state can't help you with your grades. So really, instead of being close minded, have a look at countries who are doing better in the aspect your country is having problem (every country should try to look at the others).
> norway, Sweden, Finnland and many others I think you are confusing capitalist countries with social programs with socialism. Socialism is a worker owned system of government.
The only definition of socialism involves the workers seizing the means of production. What you are describing with the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland is not socialism, but Keynesianism which is intervention by the State to aid the economy.
There is a way for workers to own companies... It's called starting and owning a company. The world isn't fair. It's never been fair. 2017 America is the most fair civilization that has ever existed in human history. Sure, 60 years ago the white guy could get a home loan easier than the black guy, but 600 years ago the white peasant was doomed to a life of poverty while only a handful of elites ruled over Europe. We can play this game all day, because most of human history is horrible. We don't realize how good we have it because we have been spoiled since birth with late 20th and 21st century life.
@@righteyeblind23666 Okay, fine, I actually agree with you. But how about the racism that this female is blabbering. Now I know you americans live in a nation where racism is through the roof and education not so much so I don't expect much from you.
Red herring. You clearly do not understand that, while a socialist may live in America, that doesn't make it possible for us to literally live via our economic convictions. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Diax, there is no ethical aspect of forcing socialism on people at the point of a gun. If it's such a great idea, how come it cannot work unless it's forced?
This model is already in work. When you float the shares of your company, you open your company to ownership. But no matter who owns the company, the major decisions will be made by a small group of people called directors. The say of small shareholders is mostly nominal.
Thanks but if a business is created as a worker cooperative the decision making will be shared by all members in most matters. Consolidation of power consolidates wealth & inequality.
@@cheeseball4292 Blind are the people who still think collective ownership is possible. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao were a few such blind men. When powers are divested, so is the accountability and chaos ensues.
Gui Oliver she's not lol... people are ignorant and scared of idk what lol... she's just expanding on what's already available and saying we should do more of it..
It's a 12 minute video uploaded 13 minutes ago, with 45 likes and 65 dislikes already, and everyone in the comments talking about capitalism vs. socialism. Come on guys, at least debate on what's in the video, not what you already believed.
Yea, most people commenting haven't watched the video. They likely don't even distinguish between so-called communist states and the quite modest proposal discussed in the video.
looking at the title alone i can already see why people are bringing up capitalism v socialism. and if im right it wont be about workers within a company being given shares to the company so that they "own" a part of the business providing them an incentive to better the business and help it to succeed. heres hoping im wrong and that this is a decent idea that is Not just the socialist give the business to the workers structure that stifles ingenuity, productivity,, individuality, and at times freedom 20 seconds in. if you are tired of having a boss then become an entrepreneur and start your own business, it might not be easy but it cant be too difficult right? 40 seconds in. hope you dont become too successful with that self business or you may have too much to do by yourself and you MIGHT need to hire someone to do part of the work for you... 1:20 in. congratz on the small business you founded. kudos to you for getting it off the ground. 2:00 in. leveraged. white. privilege.... continue 3:00 in. so you stayed with family and they supported you as you got your feet on the ground. family privilege? are non-white homes unsafe and unclean? 4:00 in. ok a list of ways non-whites are excluded from the economy . 5:00 in point 1 racism and capitalism are best homies. point 2 some black entrepreneurs started their own businesses and became pillars of their community instead of prioritizing profit( or waiting for capitalism to fix their problems for them?...) 5:10 in. read my book :) well im guessing a clearer listing of her 12 points is in there. admittedly explaining 12 points in depth would take a solid amount of time. alright. 6:10 in. getting loans is impossible so skilled workers within an industry will have to stop being workers and start businesses together because capitalism doesnt let them do this..? i think? 6:25 in. they get to be the boss instead of having a boss, not because they started their own company, but because they started their own NOT company. i see... 8:00 in. ok so the model functions, at least for now. we will see how it fares although what stops someone from paying the company 1000 dollars to become a owner and then not working? when a large expense is required who decides what to get and if there is a disagreement about a decision or purchase who is in the right? do the other bosses vote on it? how many votes are expected to take place a day? the model seems to function for small businesses but at some point delegation will be required, organization will be needed to function smoothly specializing will be necessary to make everyones jobs more efficient. at some point someone skilled at managing organizing and leadership will have to join the business to make everyone elses workload easier. and the moment that happens the management will become so convenient that everyone will find their jobs being dependent on it. and if a managers job gets too hectic he may choose to leave because he cant handle the demand. how much will this cluster of bosses be willing to pay this one manager for the services provided? this seems like a model that can only realistically function within the sme world and when put up against other sme competitors i dont know how well it will fare. nor do i see how its much different than any skilled individual choosing to self contract. 9:30 in. ok so these cooperatives are free to exist within the capitalist marketplace. how racist..? if they flourish theyll flourish. if they fail theyll fail. so she has putforth a model that may or may not be sustainable or efficient while condemning the overarching capitalistic market that allows her to do this freely, as a racist and possibly sexist entity. im not convinced that this makes the market more resilient. im not convinced that the market is racist. and im not convinced that this isnt just a micro market working within the larger framework that they have chosen to vilify. support from any source is often necessary to get something off the ground. an investment is usually required whether you convince someone based on a good idea or you pay out of pocket. the reason why bosses make what they do is because they put themselves through that. and continue to invest massive amounts of their day to keeping it functional. its far from perfect but not everybody is willing to take risks in order to make something from the ground up.. should this be downvoted as much as it is? nah. are many people wrong for disagreeing. not necessarily, is what shes doing worth pursuing? sure.
The Sqooq The Sqooq as person living in a nation with universal welfare, universal healthcare and paid education, where everyone still makes more money than America's minnimum wage, yes i do honestly belive there are some pretty good arguments for socialisme.
If you work it or buy from it, you should own it. If you use it, you should own it. There, a common sense principle, plain and simple! What’s so hard about that?
I live in the somewhat socialist county of Sweden. During the 80s the left parties including the Social democratic party wanted all the big companys to change from being owned by the stock owners to being owned by the employees. This was called "löntagarfonder" which can be translated to "employee funds". This fortunately never became reality and nowadays all the parties from left to right has come to the conclusion that this would have been horrendous for the Swedish economy. I really only think that this kind of company ownership model works for relatively small businesses where each employee can see how his efforts make a difference for the end result. Upscale this model to a level where each employee can't see how his efforts directly make a difference for the end result and the initiative to work harder goes away.
Precisely. Automation even makes individual direct ownership & control more important. Eventually that will create so much wealth no one cares about freely sharing but you need the beneficiaries directly involved to ensure it moves that direction and stays there.
Jusonn99 what? Does a company have to be owned by a certified capitalist or something in order to qualify? This is a simplistic view on the difference between capitalism and communism
Karl Marx, arguably the most influential philosopher of communism talked extensively about the worker owning the means of production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite! It's like trying to say the concept of "supply and demand" isn't capitalistic at all.
hating on capitalism outs persons as morons who are communists, thats why people argue that communism does not work. her talk is pointless, since owning stock is a common thing in the market.
No. They're just not differentiating between voluntary co-op's and co-op's created and sustained through force, violence, and coercion. Voluntary co-op's are fine.
Solidarity do mean that if you pay the others can not pay and the government can make you pay that what the others do not pay. Better to split the cost and effort and work load then solidarity. Solidarity is a good word but how do it work in practice?
thats capitalism, and therefore bad. she is talking about a revolutionary new thing, the workers pay a union money, the union does something magical and then the workers own parts of the company!
Fine if it's voluntary. Create an idea, implement a business with your friends or others of like mind, and work to succeed. Just don't force others to contribute involuntarily. That's what she's advocating.
Because sweetie. Rich elites have successfully indoctrinated the american latino demographic to blame it all on whitey. Its all smoke and mirrors put out by the elites, such as George Soros (became billionaire by scamming countries) who funded BLM, Antifa all the lbtqttfqwtf+++ groups etc. They are his personal army of useful idiots he uses to poison public debate. So we fight eachother on the streets and on discussions all day long instead of fighting the dragon.
Because she's advocating for others to be forced to sustain her business. She also hasn't sold her business to her workers yet. Money where mouth is? Trying to pretend there's White Privileged when there's no such thing. She's being racist. Advocating force, violence and coercion against others (taking other people's money at the point of a gun), so other co-op's can be brought into existence and falsely sustained through immoral means.
Damn I don't agree with everything but Ted talks normally have a slightly more mature audience then the rest of RUclips that is not well represented here
Devil's Advocate Communism is a form of socialism, and co-ops aren't socialist. Therefore, they certainly aren't "communist" either. Coops exist within the economic system today and are often more productive than traditional businesses. The main issue with co-ops today is that they can't receive any VC capital from any traditional firms, and frankly not that many people (even educated in corporate governance) know much about coops.
because it IS socialism... the cooperative movement IS socialist. Indeed workers getting the profits fixes the main issue Karl Marx's had with capitalism. The cooperative movement was founded in England in the 1840's based on the writings of Robert Owen a Scottish capitalist and so called Utopian socialist
I think people are failing to think critically about the future. You, and your children and above all else your children's children, will not be working in the same context as your ancestors. Either two things will occur when automation will take over mass production jobs, service jobs, etc. Either there will be massive wealth inequality or everyone is wealthy which makes no one wealthy (wealth distribution) This is not to say socialism is the answer, nor is it not the answer. We have to adapt, unlike societies before us. Capitalism is not a flexible system, it doesn't account for nonconstant growth. At some point everyone will have iphones, everyone will have an electric car, everyone will have a tv, computer, etc. Then what? Where do we go from there? Also, at some point, due to labor costs being so cheap thanks to automation, a company will be able to afford to produce the paramount "iphone" for example. Even if they hold back upgrades in increments. The iphone now is even getting to that point physically. It cant get thinner, or lighter, yea software updates might help to an extent sell more product, but if everyone can afford that, buy it, then what? We're in serious trouble in regards to massive job loss. I don't know what will happen.
When everyone has all the material stuff they care to work for then we all retire. We focus on relationships, actually living. You've incorrectly connected usury (interest) + Fractional Reserve banking to capitalism. There are many videos that explain fractional reserve banking. Forced growth is caused by usury (interest) & fractional reserve banking.
While I do think that communism doesn't work generally, and so should the case with cooperatives too, as it is somewhat based on a similar idea....- there are plenty of cooperatives which are economically viable and healthy, and have been so for many decades! One example, which straight away comes to my mind is...Amul - a cooperative business society based in India and established in 1950, which has been phenomenal in its success. So, I do think that the truth is not that straight and simple. There needs to be more study and analysis, to find out exactly what makes cooperatives work in some cases. Is it just the make up of the society out of which it is formed? Or it could be something else.
The main reasons socialist states often quickly falls is because of CIA funding a civil war or coup. eg : Korea (1946), Iran (1953), Haiti (1991), and many more. And the resons those who do survive are often horrible dictatures is that they're often not (or way not as bad) and are depicted as those by propaganda and decades of socialism-hating in the US. Eg : Cuba. Counter-eg : North Korea (which IS horrible) Sources : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Cold_War_era
How does having the government involved in the creation every business actually help the economy? Tax payers will be on the hook for every failed business. The government is not known for being good at theses types of investments and I don't see how her wanting it to be so changes that fact.
+Brian Boudreaux When does she ever say anything about government creating businesses? She did call upon union organizations to help fund and promote worker cooperatives however.
I couldn't believe when she said she benefited from white privilege. What her grandmother did was take out a loan during a time that systematic racism was legal. That doesn't exist anymore and honestly, white privilege never existed and I can say that from my experience as a minority. As for the idea of employees in minority communities owning their small business, it sounded great especially because everyone in a captalist society who invests in a business is expected to work, until she proposed the idea of having the employees syndicate or unionize. Redundancy will only cause bureaucracy in management and will cause the business to fail.
She's exactly right about privilege. Read _"The Color of Law"_ by Richard Rothstein to get an idea of how HUD, FHA and VA ignored the Constitution and Supreme Court by both actively requiring, and then later on ignoring, intentional exclusion of blacks from community development and home mortgage insurance that makes for cheaper interest rates. The bulk of family wealth in the US, not including the top 10% or so averages around $145,000 dollars. This is primarily in home equity built up since the post WW II sub-urbanization boom. But it all started back with Jim Crow after the Civil War. Niki is right about the capitalist lies. It's built in contradictions lead to periodic busts that require bailouts. Business needs people, needs consumers of their goods and services. The coming replacement of people by AI and robots will be forced by the motive of short term profits. But it will crush the purchasing power of the people who are deemed dispensable. You need workers as owners to put controls on these contradictions. Extremes of socialism can be just as bad. But we need both and so does business. Everyone benefits from military, police, education, sewage an water, roads and more, all supported by the commonweal. Despite the ghost stories and knee jerk reactions in these comments, that is all socialism.
Lorem It's a given that people won't solve it. People supported what the government did. The government supported them. So what's your brilliant solution - or are you just spouting off to be cute?
What you make of it, whether you agree or not, this sounds similar to anarchism, not communism by the way. Just saying that it sound like it, I do fully believe in unions for the protection of the workers.
Neo socialism focuses more on smaller scales than previous, failed attempts at socialism like Soviet Russia or Venezuela, which focused on larger scale socialism. The trouble with socialism at larger scales is that you still end up concentrating power and ownership in the hands of the few. This breeds corruption and gross inequality, just as it does in capitalism. By focusing on worker ownership at smaller scales, this will ACTUALLY propel equality of power and ownership throughout society. Some sectors need to be socialized at larger scales, like the military or healthcare, but for most sectors socialism should focus on worker ownership at smaller scales (i.e. worker co-ops).
The main problem today is the investor class, a class that hoards capital and is disconnected with the employees and the production side of profit, they are only interested in stock prices, this disconnect killed productivity.
How are decisions made? do you need a vote for every little decision? Also, isn't that system similar to companies giving their employees company stock options?
Why do you need government funding to open a worker-owned business? Normal companies don't requires this. Is it because worker owned companies are not as efficient as normal companies? No where in the video did you say why it is more resilient. If this alternative form of business could work, then why are people not creating them all the time? Ah yes, I know why. Because when you own a business, you are taking a risk. You don't realize how many businesses fail, all the time. That business owner then loses all their money, but the employees only really lose a job. They did not invest their money. Imagine, if you will, we hit another recession. All the employees that have put their money into the business, just lost it. Now, no longer are they just jobless, they also have a lot less saving. I have an idea, its called the STOCK MARKET. Go invest in a publicly traded company and work for them. There you go, that's your dream. We already do this. It's just optional for the workers, if they want to risk their money or not.
Stock Market is not an accurate comparison. LLC & partnerships are a better example. The profits must be directly controlled by the people doing the work & investing their other valuable property. Big corporate government suffers similar problems as big state government. Small & focused with direct involvement in the decisions not diluted by many other people is the way for future success. The is especially important as human labor is being replaced by automation. Each individual must own and control the Things That Make Things. Ideally they own it by themselves. Every individual a capitalist. That is the goal.
She gets the wealth from her white ancestors and gets to use being a black female as an edge. With the power of her white privledge and race card, she will be unstoppable!
The point of her statement is that inter-generational wealth is a thing. Not every white person is rich, but there was a time when black people were given less opportunity. Income mobility is rather low, and it takes more generations for everyone to even out economically. She's being edgy on purpose, because it wins over her crowd as well as being a "screw you" to the white people who miss the point. You cannot completely divorce the ideas of "wealth privelege" and "white privelege". You can find rich black people and you can point to a white family who has been poor since money began being printed. That doesn't mean there isn't imbalance left over.
It's not a privilege to not be a victim of oppression, but the word is used to make the opinion of whites invalid, with no attempt made to ascertain the background of the individual. And like you said, it's correlation, not causation, the causation is actual wealth, not European ancestry. So calling it white privilege is an intentionally dishonest tactic by nasty, agenda driven racists.
I was interested until she turned business into a statement. She could have just talked about numbers and how a system like this would work in an American economy. But instead it was focused on working on our own time for "living wages" making it sound more like a get rich scheme ad when a real argument could have been made with research.
As a capitalist, I'm not completely against this idea...for small businesses. Larger corporations need more centralized control and ownership in order to use their resources efficiently as the individual worker would make up too little of a portion of the corporation to make skilled management decisions. However for small businesses I could see this working, although not as efficiently as the traditional LLC model for most small businesses. And on a macroeconomic level this has no feasible way of working on a large scale
Have you checked the already existing vast number of worker coops and their success/failure stories? Or are you just making assumptions on what you feel?
I guess no one learns from history where as socialism aka border line communism does not work. The communist system has collapsed 3 economies over the last mmmm 50 year time span. Capitalism is your opportunity to become rich and make the money you've earned from building your own business and thriving in any economy. Any race in this country gets the opportunities and it's their own decisions that make happen. It won't happen over night nor will it just happen automatically for you. Everything is earned. All this was, was a video made to beg for money for inner city communities (that get a lot of money from donations and government funds) and don't change a damn thing anyway even with the money. So "white Privilege" is a made up factor used to blame someone for their success. "Sorry you can't do it on your own" is more like it.
Governor Moose The David Pakman Show shows times where forms of socialism or its principles have "worked" in certain instances. TwentyPercentDash Bernie socialism isn't socialism because it doesn't replace capitalism. It's merely attempts to "humanize" the system. In actually, We haven't had capitalism since America's colonial administration. Monopolies came to the United States with the colonial administration. The large-scale public works needed to make the New World hospitable to Old World immigrants required large companies to carry them out. These companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. Even after the American Revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land they held. They continue to be in power down to this day, we have always had a oligarchy within the framework of a mixed economy and market forces.
Governor Moose Socialism= National health service in the UK, free (or a couple of hundred euros) universities in Europe, national rail services. Socialism works just fine in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Germany etc. Communism and socialism is not the same.
Glitterbug thanks... Im from Switzerland and i am really tired of people not understanding the difference between socialism and communism. Switzerland has capitalism with socialistic elements and we have a great economy. And the even more socialist countries like norway are doing fine as well
@Rafaela It does help that those particular systems don't go out of bounds and reach extreme levels. Socialism can go too far, and there are plenty of examples of that; where they preach some global ideal where everyone is buddy buddy and what not. That's the sort of idealism that will tear the system apart. Doesn't help that the American mindset is completely different either, where it's "every man for himself". The very idea of having to pay for someone else's healthcare or education disgusts some of them even if the overall results are more positive. Some aspects of socialism are positive, some negative. But that's the nature of every system, much like how conservatism and progressivism have positive and negative aspects to each of them. It's up to our politicians to engage in open dialogue, figure out the flaws and then look at where each system fits in best without leaning too far into the extreme.
Glitterbug The Nordic Model isn't the answer because poverty is only broken when someone moves up socioeconomically. This allows them to also take advantage of their political rights to the fullest. Monopoly busting laws, the development of domestic industries and entrepreneurship is also important. We need to help people acquire their basic needs and the foundations of wellbeing. This ensures opportunity for all. Innovation education and career development is key.
Explain this in detail using 2 paragraphs, cite your examples in MLA format. If you can't provide unarguable proof of this, you are completely incorrect.
There's a difference between being incorrect and not having proof. Also, if we want to talk about this sort of thing, then you are in the exact same position because you can't do what you just asked of him either. In fact there is far more evidence that socialism doesn't work than it does. Even if he were totally incorrect, he wouldn't be incorrect because he doesn't have proof, and it certainly wouldn't make you correct.
+Diax1324 Why don't you set a good example by providing an argument of the kind you're asking everybody else to make. Also failing to provide proof is not the same as making an incorrect statement.
why do u think south korea is a rich country while north korea is dirt poor is it because north koreans are of a different race than south koreans and the evil western man discriminates between the two or is it because one country 's economy is controlled by a central entity while the other is free to grow and incentivizes people to innovate and prosper and don't come at me with the argument that north korea has a tiranical government and that your socialism would be for the people because every socialist takeover starts that way with the majority of people stealing by the force of government resources from more productive people and crippling down the economy
Companies in Venezuela are state owned, you dumbass. The low level workers have no part in ownership and no say in decisions. This comment bears no relation to the video.
General S. Patton hmm... Im from Switzerland and we have both socialistic elements and capitalistic ones. And we are doing just fine. I earn 35 dollars an hour as a cashier on sundays (im a university student and need money to pay rent and such). Not a bad wage if you ask me. And the more socialist countries such as norway are doing fine as well. Before you condemn everything just because of your idiology, take the time and look.
Rafaela Scheiwiller switserland and the Nordic countries aren't socialist states. They are capitalist states. Yeah they have social programs. But that's it. They don't follow the ideology of socialism.
Worker owned co-operatives are technically not capitalist as by definition profits are passed to the workers. Profit existed millennia before capitalism and the populous don't understand or simply realise this.
This woman doesn't understand what capitalism is. Her fight is against corporatism. Capitalism simply refers to the ownership of private property. Labour is a commodity within this system. The model she promotes still falls under capitalism. Just because collectivism is advocated that doesn't do away with the capitalist element. The capital is merely disrubuted differently.
Capitalism isn't the same thing as mere ownership of private property. Don't make bones about definitions when yours isn't the standard one, and when she explicitly defines her terms for the audience.
Justin Davis norway, etc. Im from Switzerland and we have both capitalist and socialist elements, taking the best from both worlds. And we are quite rich (i earn 35 an hour on sundays as a cashier in a supermarket). Now, not everything is perfect and you can abuse the system, too. But overall, we arr doing much better than "pure" capitalist countries such as the US
Switzerland is a republic with semi-direct democracy. Don't mix up effective social policy with socialism. If your country was socialist you wouldn't have so many wealthy banks. You would have only one state owned and poor. Switzerland is among few true democracies.
zjetman we have a direct democracy... The whole country has to vote for new laws and constitutional changes. Even if the parliament approves, but the folk does not, the folk will have the say. We can also collect signatures and if we have enough, there will be a vote about this initiative. I could go out right now and start an initiative. I don't even know if there is a country that has a better direct democracy. But maybe in english you would call it a semi direct democracy
zjetman well i did learn in economics class that socialism and capitalism are two systems and that most european countries are in between. And i never said that we are pure socialist, which we are clearly not. I'd say we are capitalist with a pinch of socialism, but maybe you call it different in the english language, which is possible. If so, i am sorry. But wether you call it social policies or socialist elements is not that important (i am sorry if you think otherwise). In the end, whatever you call it, it works for us. And norway has even more social policies.
Firstly, the US is by no means a pure capitalist country, in terms of economic freedom, Singapore ranks way ahead of the US. Secondly, the ability of a country to implement social policies lies with demography, Switzerland has a tiny population in relation with the US (8 million vs 300 million) the bureaucracy involved with overseeing such a large scale operation of "benefits" as we in the UK call it, is quite a big task. Third, true democracy again lies in the limitation of the size of the population, when you have more than 300 million people, how direct is each of their voices? Not very as one would assume. It's wonderful that you are applying what you learnt in economics class, I just wanted to point out some nuances that exist in different countries.
To the people bitching "this is socialism" yes it is. It is workers owning the means of production. It is also free market as worker owned firms will compete with each other. Think Coke and Pepsi being worker owned. I believe Benjamin Tucker called it Free Market Socialism.
Honestly I don't understand why so many are against free market. I think it is the only good thing with capitalism and the one which made it successfull.
Worker's coops are capitalists not socialists. This is just another example of socialists trying to pretend capitalist things are theirs. As long as these worker's coops are private, they are capitalists.
Socialism is garbage. Free markets are the only way.
@@booketoiles1600 Capitalism is just a free market economy. Thats all capitalism is. Theres nothing else to it. If you like free market economies, you are a capitalist.
This is the core principle of socialism: "workers owning the means of production". Yes, that's what socialism is. Socialism is not about the STATE owning everything, it's about the WORKERS owning everything.
It's inspiring to see Niki Okuk advocating for cooperative economics, prioritizing community, sustainability, and resilience over profit. Her vision of working-class people organizing and owning the businesses they work for empowers them to make decisions and enjoy a better future.
Enjoyed the message and delivery of this talk. Thanks for sharing 🧡 the quote at the end spoke VOLUMES ‼️
When workers take their business, they become more motivated and work harder, they cease to be slaves.
S O C I A L I S M W I L L W I N
@@booketoiles1600 Amen!
No they dont. Their company dies. Or they put someone in charge who takes all the money and the workers end up earning less than they would otherwise.
Thank you so much for your fierce clarity & compassion Ms Okuk!
I'm sharing this video and your organization's URL widely.
Someday the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit.
Children dont work. Your comment makes no sense.
I can really feel the force with this one.
Honestly see nothing wrong with what she’s saying. It’s all factual and based on solid morals
More delightful TEDx content on TED.
Sucks people are disliking this without watching it. It's way less incendiary that the title would suggest
What did you expect, the usual TED public is liberal glorifying capitalism, they don't like being told wrong.
Cuba is an economic miracle. North Korea is a democratic republic. Venezuela is an example of great innovation.
Cubas average poverty rate is only 4%, North Korea was developing faster than South Korea until the soviets collapsed and lost their one big trading partner, and Venezuelas economy is going through s recession cause of a drop in oil prices
The Irish Commie depends what you consider poverty, I've been in Cuba, when you see doctors working night jobs as bartenders and driving around in 70 year old cars painted with house paint, high standards of living is not the first thing that comes to mind.
Joker Yeah never mind they they are struggling under the thumb of the US. Smooth move there.
Jacob Hansen Worker coops are almost the exact opposite of state run enterprises. Actually watch the video.
Brenda Rua how are they struggling under the thumb of the us, they were holding nuclear weapons for the soviets, so straight off the bat, pretty good reason for the us to restrict interaction with them. It's not like the US has an obligation to interact with them, and posing as a communist country so close to US soil was a threat to the US in the past and is a symbolic threat today, even at the moment, their interactions are being freed up. The hardships those people are dealing with are a result of communism, the repercussions incurred from the US are reactionary to that.
I study in Mondragon in a school that is a part of the cooperative, I go to grocery stores that are run by it, I buy tickets back to the USA to visit family in the travel agencies they own... everything from clothing stores to factories are part of this cooperative. There are a lot of benefits to it, but dont think that it doesn't have it's downsides and it is always isn't what is best for the small businesses and mom and pop stores. Here in Basque Country I think the model is certainly better than that presented in the USA, but it is not perfect.
Yes. Definitely it will have downsides. But these downsides are nothing that don't exist in traditional businesses. Furthermore, what matters is that it is an improvement over traditional businesses.
Not that it’s negates her argument just interesting to point out that after the October revolution in Russia, the sovnakom introduced the workers degree which did this exact thing
Great stuff.
Definitely! This may be the best way to revitalize Detroit. Thanks for sharing!
This is precisely the mentality that destroyed Detroit. It's what happens when you hand over power to unions. These unions were profit-maximizing organizations in bed with the government, with a vast army of lobbyists and voting power, enacting laws to allow them to monopolize labor.
There's no such thing as "slave wages". Slaves don't get a wage. The wages they paid in foreign countries were the going market wage, and the workers there were happy to take those jobs. Unions made American wages noncompetitive. Even if you wanted to work for less, you weren't allowed to.
"Straw man" - not sure that means what you think it means.
You think adding all those factory jobs to central america actually left the workers worse off? If that were true, no one would accept those jobs. That work was better than what they had, so they accepted it. It's not slave labor; you're the one being intellectually dishonest, ya filthy commie.
You people are so entitled, thinking that you're worth so much more than everyone else. You'd have them unemployed to prop up your own wages. Fortunately for everyone buying a car, the free market prevailed. Cry about it.
@@JoshSideris First, you just insult him. Second, that claim about South American workers fails in the face of history. People can be so desperate for jobs that they will compete with others, presenting lower wages than others. It happened in the US before the union. Unions also didn't kill the Detroit factories, greed did. An increase in profit that was spotted GM's CEO lead to the closing of several plants, and the relocation to South America and other Third World countries, not unions. If that was the case, Volvo wouldn't have factories in Sweden, due to a near 90% union rate, or in Germany, where unions are powerful. They took advantage of weak unions unable to do anything to strike.
Love it!
Nobody is preventing workers from owning and managing companies. Go right ahead. In reality most people don't want or even have the skills to do it.
The fact that co-ops can't receive a cent in VC funding (or the vast majority of banks) is a pretty big deterrent in my book.
Companies will collaborate to put anything worker owned out of business. Also, the state kind of stands in the way of seizing the means of production.
So, since the people in the comment section have never taken a simple economics class: socialism is not communism. You can effectively have a mixture of capitalism and socialism with many successful examples such as norway, Sweden, Finnland and many others. Now i am from Switzerland and we are not as socialistic as norway, but compared to the US, we still have a lot of socialist elements, such as good education being free (if you are too poor to pay for it). Switzerland is rich and doing just fine. Our universities are owned by the state and therefore, not that expensive and if you can prove that you cannot afford it, the state will pay. Here, we don't have homeless people because they didn't get a chance in life. The few we do have are mostly do to other causes. If you are willing to work, you can get a decent job and even work your way up, it doesn't matter if your family is poor. But you need to put in effort, the state can't help you with your grades. So really, instead of being close minded, have a look at countries who are doing better in the aspect your country is having problem (every country should try to look at the others).
Rafaela Scheiwiller, Lenin disagrees you commie thief.
> norway, Sweden, Finnland and many others
I think you are confusing capitalist countries with social programs with socialism. Socialism is a worker owned system of government.
socialism is not communism, but communism is part of socialism
Rafaela Scheiwiller to bad we pay for your defense budget, among other things, and your tax is fucking outrageous when it comes to business. Lol
The only definition of socialism involves the workers seizing the means of production. What you are describing with the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland is not socialism, but Keynesianism which is intervention by the State to aid the economy.
Love it.
There is a way for workers to own companies... It's called starting and owning a company.
The world isn't fair. It's never been fair. 2017 America is the most fair civilization that has ever existed in human history. Sure, 60 years ago the white guy could get a home loan easier than the black guy, but 600 years ago the white peasant was doomed to a life of poverty while only a handful of elites ruled over Europe. We can play this game all day, because most of human history is horrible. We don't realize how good we have it because we have been spoiled since birth with late 20th and 21st century life.
I want to know more about this. Great speech👍
Check Democracy@Work and start listening to Richard Wolff's podcast - Economic Update. He's fantastic.
This video seems to have hit a nerve among diehard capitalists
Yep, and yet, you see noone making any points against worker coops in the comments.
@@righteyeblind23666
Okay, fine, I actually agree with you.
But how about the racism that this female is blabbering.
Now I know you americans live in a nation where racism is through the roof and education not so much so I don't expect much from you.
I bet that 90% of negative comments are posted by employees that would actually profit from owning their own workplace...
"Technology, Entertainment, Design."
Well good. She can start all the businesses she wants with her own money and give it away.
Red herring. You clearly do not understand that, while a socialist may live in America, that doesn't make it possible for us to literally live via our economic convictions. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Diax, there is no ethical aspect of forcing socialism on people at the point of a gun. If it's such a great idea, how come it cannot work unless it's forced?
3 minutes in and I'm already convinced her point about black people is correct, dont even need to watch the rest of the video
Where can I read more about the companies she's talking about?
This model is already in work. When you float the shares of your company, you open your company to ownership. But no matter who owns the company, the major decisions will be made by a small group of people called directors. The say of small shareholders is mostly nominal.
Thanks but if a business is created as a worker cooperative the decision making will be shared by all members in most matters. Consolidation of power consolidates wealth & inequality.
I can see that you're blinded by capitalism.
@@cheeseball4292 Blind are the people who still think collective ownership is possible. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao were a few such blind men. When powers are divested, so is the accountability and chaos ensues.
Amazing. Love how she leads into the heart of the discussion by starting with white privilege 👌🏼
Red Scare part II in the comments here
You'll notice there are actually literal communists in the comments. As in, there username involves communism or they name it and preach it.
@@paydenallen9552 look it doesn't have to be either capitalism or communism lol, grow up
Unfortunately, it seems many people didn't get the context of what she is saying as evidenced from the like/dislike bar and the comment section
Just by looking at the number of DISLIKES in this video i guess she's defending socialism/marxism against Liberalism/captalism right?
Gui Oliver she's not lol... people are ignorant and scared of idk what lol... she's just expanding on what's already available and saying we should do more of it..
Their too busy bowing down to their corporate overlords 😂😂
Well, it is socialism, in the sense that it is the worker ownership of the means of production!
It's a 12 minute video uploaded 13 minutes ago, with 45 likes and 65 dislikes already, and everyone in the comments talking about capitalism vs. socialism. Come on guys, at least debate on what's in the video, not what you already believed.
TheFastStacker19 first thing I thought...
Yea, most people commenting haven't watched the video. They likely don't even distinguish between so-called communist states and the quite modest proposal discussed in the video.
The video title is already a complete mistake.
looking at the title alone i can already see why people are bringing up capitalism v socialism. and if im right it wont be about workers within a company being given shares to the company so that they "own" a part of the business providing them an incentive to better the business and help it to succeed.
heres hoping im wrong and that this is a decent idea that is Not just the socialist give the business to the workers structure that stifles ingenuity, productivity,, individuality, and at times freedom
20 seconds in. if you are tired of having a boss then become an entrepreneur and start your own business, it might not be easy but it cant be too difficult right?
40 seconds in. hope you dont become too successful with that self business or you may have too much to do by yourself and you MIGHT need to hire someone to do part of the work for you...
1:20 in. congratz on the small business you founded. kudos to you for getting it off the ground.
2:00 in. leveraged. white. privilege.... continue
3:00 in. so you stayed with family and they supported you as you got your feet on the ground. family privilege? are non-white homes unsafe and unclean?
4:00 in. ok a list of ways non-whites are excluded from the economy .
5:00 in point 1 racism and capitalism are best homies. point 2 some black entrepreneurs started their own businesses and became pillars of their community instead of prioritizing profit( or waiting for capitalism to fix their problems for them?...)
5:10 in. read my book :) well im guessing a clearer listing of her 12 points is in there. admittedly explaining 12 points in depth would take a solid amount of time. alright.
6:10 in. getting loans is impossible so skilled workers within an industry will have to stop being workers and start businesses together because capitalism doesnt let them do this..? i think?
6:25 in. they get to be the boss instead of having a boss, not because they started their own company, but because they started their own NOT company. i see...
8:00 in. ok so the model functions, at least for now. we will see how it fares although what stops someone from paying the company 1000 dollars to become a owner and then not working? when a large expense is required who decides what to get and if there is a disagreement about a decision or purchase who is in the right? do the other bosses vote on it? how many votes are expected to take place a day? the model seems to function for small businesses but at some point delegation will be required, organization will be needed to function smoothly specializing will be necessary to make everyones jobs more efficient. at some point someone skilled at managing organizing and leadership will have to join the business to make everyone elses workload easier. and the moment that happens the management will become so convenient that everyone will find their jobs being dependent on it. and if a managers job gets too hectic he may choose to leave because he cant handle the demand. how much will this cluster of bosses be willing to pay this one manager for the services provided? this seems like a model that can only realistically function within the sme world and when put up against other sme competitors i dont know how well it will fare. nor do i see how its much different than any skilled individual choosing to self contract.
9:30 in. ok so these cooperatives are free to exist within the capitalist marketplace. how racist..? if they flourish theyll flourish. if they fail theyll fail.
so she has putforth a model that may or may not be sustainable or efficient while condemning the overarching capitalistic market that allows her to do this freely, as a racist and possibly sexist entity.
im not convinced that this makes the market more resilient. im not convinced that the market is racist. and im not convinced that this isnt just a micro market working within the larger framework that they have chosen to vilify. support from any source is often necessary to get something off the ground. an investment is usually required whether you convince someone based on a good idea or you pay out of pocket. the reason why bosses make what they do is because they put themselves through that. and continue to invest massive amounts of their day to keeping it functional. its far from perfect but not everybody is willing to take risks in order to make something from the ground up..
should this be downvoted as much as it is? nah.
are many people wrong for disagreeing. not necessarily,
is what shes doing worth pursuing? sure.
The Sqooq The Sqooq as person living in a nation with universal welfare, universal healthcare and paid education, where everyone still makes more money than America's minnimum wage, yes i do honestly belive there are some pretty good arguments for socialisme.
If you work it or buy from it, you should own it. If you use it, you should own it. There, a common sense principle, plain and simple! What’s so hard about that?
cuba and venezuela are doing great
How are either of those countries relevant to this video?
Diax1324 they're using this system
Haiti either.
john Calderon Not at all. Shut up. Read a book for fucks sake.
UK's cooperative economy is worth £36billion... yep doing fine thanks
I live in the somewhat socialist county of Sweden. During the 80s the left parties including the Social democratic party wanted all the big companys to change from being owned by the stock owners to being owned by the employees. This was called "löntagarfonder" which can be translated to "employee funds". This fortunately never became reality and nowadays all the parties from left to right has come to the conclusion that this would have been horrendous for the Swedish economy.
I really only think that this kind of company ownership model works for relatively small businesses where each employee can see how his efforts make a difference for the end result. Upscale this model to a level where each employee can't see how his efforts directly make a difference for the end result and the initiative to work harder goes away.
Precisely. Automation even makes individual direct ownership & control more important. Eventually that will create so much wealth no one cares about freely sharing but you need the beneficiaries directly involved to ensure it moves that direction and stays there.
In this comment thread: People who have no idea what communism is arguing about communism under a video about co-ops (which aren't communism)
timinimification it's a fundamentally communist and socialist idea, to let the workers own the company.
Jusonn99 what? Does a company have to be owned by a certified capitalist or something in order to qualify? This is a simplistic view on the difference between capitalism and communism
Karl Marx, arguably the most influential philosopher of communism talked extensively about the worker owning the means of production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite!
It's like trying to say the concept of "supply and demand" isn't capitalistic at all.
hating on capitalism outs persons as morons who are communists, thats why people argue that communism does not work.
her talk is pointless, since owning stock is a common thing in the market.
No. They're just not differentiating between voluntary co-op's and co-op's created and sustained through force, violence, and coercion. Voluntary co-op's are fine.
TEDx is rarely good content. Seeing all the comments, it's hard to disagree with the like/dislike ratio.
i like ur slick cut outfit !!!
But workers can own parts of the company through stocks. Just because you're too ignorant to know how it works doesn't mean it's discrimination.
It often can't do much, especially in a one share, one vote system.
Solidarity do mean that if you pay the others can not pay and the government can make you pay that what the others do not pay.
Better to split the cost and effort and work load then solidarity.
Solidarity is a good word but how do it work in practice?
It's great many companies offer
*stock options* :)
Channel for Positivity l Understanding l Justice stock options are a great added value. Profit sharing programs as well.
Workers can already own companies. We call it stock.
thats capitalism, and therefore bad. she is talking about a revolutionary new thing,
the workers pay a union money, the union does something magical and then the workers own parts of the company!
that's communism.
Also how is capitalism bad?
No it's syndicalism.
Capitalism is not bad, crony capitalism is.
Double D the workers get profit in communism, not wages
"Employers" cant own the company but are workers they can. They're call "entrepreneurs"
Too much love in this video and too much hate in the comments. Maybe you don't want to face truly ideas that are working. ;)
Fine if it's voluntary. Create an idea, implement a business with your friends or others of like mind, and work to succeed. Just don't force others to contribute involuntarily. That's what she's advocating.
love the idea, hate the presentation.
Why do they always have to put a racial twist on it? She actually has good ideas about individual responsibility when it comes to business ownership
Because sweetie. Rich elites have successfully indoctrinated the american latino demographic to blame it all on whitey. Its all smoke and mirrors put out by the elites, such as George Soros (became billionaire by scamming countries) who funded BLM, Antifa all the lbtqttfqwtf+++ groups etc. They are his personal army of useful idiots he uses to poison public debate. So we fight eachother on the streets and on discussions all day long instead of fighting the dragon.
le epic sharing is caring economy
So, the share market?
Rendered obsolete
Okay. Give me a good reason you'd downvote this... that isn't fear-based.
Because she's advocating for others to be forced to sustain her business. She also hasn't sold her business to her workers yet. Money where mouth is? Trying to pretend there's White Privileged when there's no such thing. She's being racist. Advocating force, violence and coercion against others (taking other people's money at the point of a gun), so other co-op's can be brought into existence and falsely sustained through immoral means.
Damn I don't agree with everything but Ted talks normally have a slightly more mature audience then the rest of RUclips that is not well represented here
This isn't socialism, and I have no idea why so many comments here think it is.
Because the average RUclips commenter is wearing ideological blinders, they don't know or care that a co-op is a thing that exists.
Evan C. Socialism and communism share some traits.
Devil's Advocate : It's not communism either. It's collectivism.
Devil's Advocate Communism is a form of socialism, and co-ops aren't socialist. Therefore, they certainly aren't "communist" either. Coops exist within the economic system today and are often more productive than traditional businesses. The main issue with co-ops today is that they can't receive any VC capital from any traditional firms, and frankly not that many people (even educated in corporate governance) know much about coops.
because it IS socialism... the cooperative movement IS socialist. Indeed workers getting the profits fixes the main issue Karl Marx's had with capitalism. The cooperative movement was founded in England in the 1840's based on the writings of Robert Owen a Scottish capitalist and so called Utopian socialist
I can see her a few years younger screaming at a protest for dead cops and higher minimum wage.
@Soldado de Juan José Torres 46 people disagree with you
I think people are failing to think critically about the future. You, and your children and above all else your children's children, will not be working in the same context as your ancestors. Either two things will occur when automation will take over mass production jobs, service jobs, etc. Either there will be massive wealth inequality or everyone is wealthy which makes no one wealthy (wealth distribution) This is not to say socialism is the answer, nor is it not the answer. We have to adapt, unlike societies before us. Capitalism is not a flexible system, it doesn't account for nonconstant growth. At some point everyone will have iphones, everyone will have an electric car, everyone will have a tv, computer, etc. Then what? Where do we go from there? Also, at some point, due to labor costs being so cheap thanks to automation, a company will be able to afford to produce the paramount "iphone" for example. Even if they hold back upgrades in increments. The iphone now is even getting to that point physically. It cant get thinner, or lighter, yea software updates might help to an extent sell more product, but if everyone can afford that, buy it, then what? We're in serious trouble in regards to massive job loss. I don't know what will happen.
When everyone has all the material stuff they care to work for then we all retire. We focus on relationships, actually living.
You've incorrectly connected usury (interest) + Fractional Reserve banking to capitalism. There are many videos that explain fractional reserve banking. Forced growth is caused by usury (interest) & fractional reserve banking.
All companies are own by workers because bosses are workers as well.
That is an asinine comparison which is completely baseless in reality.
Are actually saying bosses do not work?
racism is a must have element in every healthy discussion nowadays
While I do think that communism doesn't work generally, and so should the case with cooperatives too, as it is somewhat based on a similar idea....- there are plenty of cooperatives which are economically viable and healthy, and have been so for many decades! One example, which straight away comes to my mind is...Amul - a cooperative business society based in India and established in 1950, which has been phenomenal in its success.
So, I do think that the truth is not that straight and simple. There needs to be more study and analysis, to find out exactly what makes cooperatives work in some cases. Is it just the make up of the society out of which it is formed? Or it could be something else.
The main reasons socialist states often quickly falls is because of CIA funding a civil war or coup.
eg : Korea (1946), Iran (1953), Haiti (1991), and many more.
And the resons those who do survive are often horrible dictatures is that they're often not (or way not as bad) and are depicted as those by propaganda and decades of socialism-hating in the US.
Eg : Cuba.
Counter-eg : North Korea (which IS horrible)
Sources :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Cold_War_era
They want the government to pay for worker owned businesses? How exactly would that make the economy more sustainable?
That was the entire topic of the video. Don't think you were paying attention.
How does having the government involved in the creation every business actually help the economy? Tax payers will be on the hook for every failed business. The government is not known for being good at theses types of investments and I don't see how her wanting it to be so changes that fact.
+Brian Boudreaux When does she ever say anything about government creating businesses? She did call upon union organizations to help fund and promote worker cooperatives however.
Meri simbu yah!
So we kill bourgeoisie after we size means of production or before we do that?
Never. We just welcome them into the working class, or if they are "petit bourgeoise" ( what Marxist-Leninists call self-employed people ) left alone.
I couldn't believe when she said she benefited from white privilege. What her grandmother did was take out a loan during a time that systematic racism was legal. That doesn't exist anymore and honestly, white privilege never existed and I can say that from my experience as a minority.
As for the idea of employees in minority communities owning their small business, it sounded great especially because everyone in a captalist society who invests in a business is expected to work, until she proposed the idea of having the employees syndicate or unionize. Redundancy will only cause bureaucracy in management and will cause the business to fail.
She's exactly right about privilege. Read _"The Color of Law"_ by Richard Rothstein to get an idea of how HUD, FHA and VA ignored the Constitution and Supreme Court by both actively requiring, and then later on ignoring, intentional exclusion of blacks from community development and home mortgage insurance that makes for cheaper interest rates. The bulk of family wealth in the US, not including the top 10% or so averages around $145,000 dollars. This is primarily in home equity built up since the post WW II sub-urbanization boom. But it all started back with Jim Crow after the Civil War.
Niki is right about the capitalist lies. It's built in contradictions lead to periodic busts that require bailouts. Business needs people, needs consumers of their goods and services. The coming replacement of people by AI and robots will be forced by the motive of short term profits. But it will crush the purchasing power of the people who are deemed dispensable. You need workers as owners to put controls on these contradictions. Extremes of socialism can be just as bad. But we need both and so does business. Everyone benefits from military, police, education, sewage an water, roads and more, all supported by the commonweal. Despite the ghost stories and knee jerk reactions in these comments, that is all socialism.
Brenda Rua they won't hear this
Victor Espino I fear you are right. But if it gives even one person pause to wonder then that's something.
> Government has created/ignored a terrible problem.
> We need more government to solve this problem.
Lorem It's a given that people won't solve it. People supported what the government did. The government supported them. So what's your brilliant solution - or are you just spouting off to be cute?
The free market solves almost every problem.
Came for the dislikes stayed for the communism.
I saw the thumbnail and I thought this was Blake Anderson lolll
What you make of it, whether you agree or not, this sounds similar to anarchism, not communism by the way. Just saying that it sound like it, I do fully believe in unions for the protection of the workers.
Neo socialism focuses more on smaller scales than previous, failed attempts at socialism like Soviet Russia or Venezuela, which focused on larger scale socialism. The trouble with socialism at larger scales is that you still end up concentrating power and ownership in the hands of the few. This breeds corruption and gross inequality, just as it does in capitalism. By focusing on worker ownership at smaller scales, this will ACTUALLY propel equality of power and ownership throughout society. Some sectors need to be socialized at larger scales, like the military or healthcare, but for most sectors socialism should focus on worker ownership at smaller scales (i.e. worker co-ops).
Why are people so against Socialism? This is a genuine question.
Because it has killed 10 of millions of people and destroyed economies throughout the past 100 years.
A Solitary Soul because it doesn't work
DunnYT Yet people continue to support it. Don't ask me why.
It can only work on a small scale. It doesn't drive innovation.
Theft is immoral.
It is not a bad idea, but if she had left the "color" out of this presentation I think this talk would have worked a lot better.
The main problem today is the investor class, a class that hoards capital and is disconnected with the employees and the production side of profit, they are only interested in stock prices, this disconnect killed productivity.
Pray for her..
How are decisions made? do you need a vote for every little decision? Also, isn't that system similar to companies giving their employees company stock options?
Never pressed dislike button so fast before.
So you made your judgement without listening to the arguments ? At least you assume it.
Why do you need government funding to open a worker-owned business? Normal companies don't requires this. Is it because worker owned companies are not as efficient as normal companies?
No where in the video did you say why it is more resilient. If this alternative form of business could work, then why are people not creating them all the time? Ah yes, I know why. Because when you own a business, you are taking a risk. You don't realize how many businesses fail, all the time. That business owner then loses all their money, but the employees only really lose a job. They did not invest their money.
Imagine, if you will, we hit another recession. All the employees that have put their money into the business, just lost it. Now, no longer are they just jobless, they also have a lot less saving. I have an idea, its called the STOCK MARKET. Go invest in a publicly traded company and work for them. There you go, that's your dream. We already do this. It's just optional for the workers, if they want to risk their money or not.
Resilient apparently means "we're able to get a source of funding at the point of a gun" for some reason.
Stock Market is not an accurate comparison. LLC & partnerships are a better example. The profits must be directly controlled by the people doing the work & investing their other valuable property. Big corporate government suffers similar problems as big state government. Small & focused with direct involvement in the decisions not diluted by many other people is the way for future success. The is especially important as human labor is being replaced by automation. Each individual must own and control the Things That Make Things. Ideally they own it by themselves. Every individual a capitalist. That is the goal.
Normal companies do get subsidies lolololol it's called corporate welfare
White privilege? I think she means "wealth privilege"
And by that she means living with her grandmother...
She gets the wealth from her white ancestors and gets to use being a black female as an edge. With the power of her white privledge and race card, she will be unstoppable!
Most white people don't have this luxury either. This is about wealth
The point of her statement is that inter-generational wealth is a thing. Not every white person is rich, but there was a time when black people were given less opportunity. Income mobility is rather low, and it takes more generations for everyone to even out economically. She's being edgy on purpose, because it wins over her crowd as well as being a "screw you" to the white people who miss the point. You cannot completely divorce the ideas of "wealth privelege" and "white privelege". You can find rich black people and you can point to a white family who has been poor since money began being printed. That doesn't mean there isn't imbalance left over.
It's not a privilege to not be a victim of oppression, but the word is used to make the opinion of whites invalid, with no attempt made to ascertain the background of the individual. And like you said, it's correlation, not causation, the causation is actual wealth, not European ancestry. So calling it white privilege is an intentionally dishonest tactic by nasty, agenda driven racists.
This was a promising topic ruined the moment she mentioned her "white privilege" nonsense
I was interested until she turned business into a statement. She could have just talked about numbers and how a system like this would work in an American economy. But instead it was focused on working on our own time for "living wages" making it sound more like a get rich scheme ad when a real argument could have been made with research.
As a capitalist, I'm not completely against this idea...for small businesses. Larger corporations need more centralized control and ownership in order to use their resources efficiently as the individual worker would make up too little of a portion of the corporation to make skilled management decisions. However for small businesses I could see this working, although not as efficiently as the traditional LLC model for most small businesses. And on a macroeconomic level this has no feasible way of working on a large scale
Have you checked the already existing vast number of worker coops and their success/failure stories?
Or are you just making assumptions on what you feel?
I guess no one learns from history where as socialism aka border line communism does not work. The communist system has collapsed 3 economies over the last mmmm 50 year time span. Capitalism is your opportunity to become rich and make the money you've earned from building your own business and thriving in any economy. Any race in this country gets the opportunities and it's their own decisions that make happen. It won't happen over night nor will it just happen automatically for you. Everything is earned. All this was, was a video made to beg for money for inner city communities (that get a lot of money from donations and government funds) and don't change a damn thing anyway even with the money. So "white Privilege" is a made up factor used to blame someone for their success. "Sorry you can't do it on your own" is more like it.
Do I dare read the comments?
You see, this is why we need free speech. So that we could hear people's idiotic ideas and disseminate them, so that better ideas can emerge.
Lots of people in comments against cooperatives. Lololol :D
its a shame that this women is talking on TED .
Yeah guys, socialism has worked everywhere else in the world right? Right guys?
Governor Moose
The David Pakman Show shows times where forms of socialism or its principles have "worked" in certain instances. TwentyPercentDash
Bernie socialism isn't socialism because it doesn't replace capitalism. It's merely attempts to "humanize" the system. In actually, We haven't had capitalism since America's colonial administration. Monopolies came to the United States with the colonial administration. The large-scale public works needed to make the New World hospitable to Old World immigrants required large companies to carry them out. These companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. Even after the American Revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land they held. They continue to be in power down to this day, we have always had a oligarchy within the framework of a mixed economy and market forces.
Governor Moose Socialism= National health service in the UK, free (or a couple of hundred euros) universities in Europe, national rail services. Socialism works just fine in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Germany etc. Communism and socialism is not the same.
Glitterbug thanks... Im from Switzerland and i am really tired of people not understanding the difference between socialism and communism. Switzerland has capitalism with socialistic elements and we have a great economy. And the even more socialist countries like norway are doing fine as well
@Rafaela It does help that those particular systems don't go out of bounds and reach extreme levels. Socialism can go too far, and there are plenty of examples of that; where they preach some global ideal where everyone is buddy buddy and what not. That's the sort of idealism that will tear the system apart.
Doesn't help that the American mindset is completely different either, where it's "every man for himself". The very idea of having to pay for someone else's healthcare or education disgusts some of them even if the overall results are more positive.
Some aspects of socialism are positive, some negative. But that's the nature of every system, much like how conservatism and progressivism have positive and negative aspects to each of them. It's up to our politicians to engage in open dialogue, figure out the flaws and then look at where each system fits in best without leaning too far into the extreme.
Glitterbug
The Nordic Model isn't the answer because poverty is only broken when someone moves up socioeconomically. This allows them to also take advantage of their political rights to the fullest. Monopoly busting laws, the development of domestic industries and entrepreneurship is also important.
We need to help people acquire their basic needs and the foundations of wellbeing. This ensures opportunity for all. Innovation education and career development is key.
capitalism is the only economic system that doesn't discriminate
Explain this in detail using 2 paragraphs, cite your examples in MLA format. If you can't provide unarguable proof of this, you are completely incorrect.
There's a difference between being incorrect and not having proof. Also, if we want to talk about this sort of thing, then you are in the exact same position because you can't do what you just asked of him either. In fact there is far more evidence that socialism doesn't work than it does. Even if he were totally incorrect, he wouldn't be incorrect because he doesn't have proof, and it certainly wouldn't make you correct.
capitalism only cares about the color green
+Diax1324
Why don't you set a good example by providing an argument of the kind you're asking everybody else to make. Also failing to provide proof is not the same as making an incorrect statement.
why do u think south korea is a rich country while north korea is dirt poor is it because north koreans are of a different race than south koreans and the evil western man discriminates between the two or is it because one country 's economy is controlled by a central entity while the other is free to grow and incentivizes people to innovate and prosper and don't come at me with the argument that north korea has a tiranical government and that your socialism would be for the people because every socialist takeover starts that way with the majority of people stealing by the force of government resources from more productive people and crippling down the economy
I hear the worker owned Venezeula is doing peachy right about now.
Dead Joffrey ok is that the only country you know?? And do you really know anything about that country or just what they show you on tv and Facebook?
Worker co-ops are *NOT* state enterprises, a la Venezuela.
Companies in Venezuela are state owned, you dumbass. The low level workers have no part in ownership and no say in decisions. This comment bears no relation to the video.
Evan C. That and the US is imposing sanctions on Venezuela to make it fail.
Dead Joffrey lol
Dangers of group think inevitable!!!!!
why is everything about race ? cause I feel the same way ?
*sniff* *sniff* I smell some communism here
Coops are not communism.
Stealthuism.
tried it twice in our history. doesn't work
i'm from Russia btw
Those coops still haven't bakrupted though.
They're not states they should disappear by themselves when not working.
Ah yes control the means of production.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy". - Winston Churchill.
General S. Patton hmm... Im from Switzerland and we have both socialistic elements and capitalistic ones. And we are doing just fine. I earn 35 dollars an hour as a cashier on sundays (im a university student and need money to pay rent and such). Not a bad wage if you ask me. And the more socialist countries such as norway are doing fine as well. Before you condemn everything just because of your idiology, take the time and look.
Rafaela Scheiwiller switserland and the Nordic countries aren't socialist states. They are capitalist states. Yeah they have social programs. But that's it. They don't follow the ideology of socialism.
what would stop workers from buying shares and become owners of business ! this women is simply need 101 finance education
Extremely racial message. Shame on you.
Capitalism is the greatest force for good the world has ever known
Co-ops can and do exist within a capitalist society.
Why? Because co-ops are CAPITALIST.
Worker owned co-operatives are technically not capitalist as by definition profits are passed to the workers. Profit existed millennia before capitalism and the populous don't understand or simply realise this.
people feeding on wars they are spreading in developing and even developed countries. Sounds GOOD, sure.
capitalism =/= any political movement
Leo, nobody ever argued against that.
This woman doesn't understand what capitalism is. Her fight is against corporatism. Capitalism simply refers to the ownership of private property. Labour is a commodity within this system. The model she promotes still falls under capitalism. Just because collectivism is advocated that doesn't do away with the capitalist element. The capital is merely disrubuted differently.
Nice thumbnail.
Capitalism isn't the same thing as mere ownership of private property. Don't make bones about definitions when yours isn't the standard one, and when she explicitly defines her terms for the audience.
What! Socialism worked somewhere? Liar!
Justin Davis norway, etc. Im from Switzerland and we have both capitalist and socialist elements, taking the best from both worlds. And we are quite rich (i earn 35 an hour on sundays as a cashier in a supermarket). Now, not everything is perfect and you can abuse the system, too. But overall, we arr doing much better than "pure" capitalist countries such as the US
Switzerland is a republic with semi-direct democracy. Don't mix up effective social policy with socialism. If your country was socialist you wouldn't have so many wealthy banks. You would have only one state owned and poor. Switzerland is among few true democracies.
zjetman we have a direct democracy... The whole country has to vote for new laws and constitutional changes. Even if the parliament approves, but the folk does not, the folk will have the say. We can also collect signatures and if we have enough, there will be a vote about this initiative. I could go out right now and start an initiative. I don't even know if there is a country that has a better direct democracy. But maybe in english you would call it a semi direct democracy
zjetman well i did learn in economics class that socialism and capitalism are two systems and that most european countries are in between. And i never said that we are pure socialist, which we are clearly not. I'd say we are capitalist with a pinch of socialism, but maybe you call it different in the english language, which is possible. If so, i am sorry. But wether you call it social policies or socialist elements is not that important (i am sorry if you think otherwise). In the end, whatever you call it, it works for us. And norway has even more social policies.
Firstly, the US is by no means a pure capitalist country, in terms of economic freedom, Singapore ranks way ahead of the US.
Secondly, the ability of a country to implement social policies lies with demography, Switzerland has a tiny population in relation with the US (8 million vs 300 million) the bureaucracy involved with overseeing such a large scale operation of "benefits" as we in the UK call it, is quite a big task.
Third, true democracy again lies in the limitation of the size of the population, when you have more than 300 million people, how direct is each of their voices? Not very as one would assume.
It's wonderful that you are applying what you learnt in economics class, I just wanted to point out some nuances that exist in different countries.
I had a stroke.
Communism alert.
Communism intensifies