Matt Cropp 🌲🌲 is a user on social.coop. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse.
Matt Cropp 🌲🌲 @mattcropp

The difference as articulated in 1930:

Β· 67 Β· 63

@mattcropp i love that the subtitle implies christian imperative for coops. πŸ™

@archangelic One person who seems to be trying pretty hard on that front is @ntnsndr, if you're not following him yet...

@mattcropp what you really want is a profit sharing corporation

better work: more personal profit

@b I prefer over simple profit-sharing, but into which stakeholder group ownership should be optimally vested is pretty context dependent.

I like for a lot of things, but for sectors that tends towards natural monopoly (say utilities), consumer ownership is a useful useful. Institutional diversity FTW. ;)

@mattcropp
''in proportion to their patronage''
what does that mean here?

@paulfree14 The is the mechanism by which a operates on a not-for-profit basis towards its members in the context of market pricing.

Say a made a 5% profit/surplus last year. If you spent $100 there and I spent $1000, I would get $50 back while you would get $5 in your Patronage Refund.

For , patronage is based on labor contributed, of which the simplest formula is hours worked, so if I worked 2x your hours, I'd get 2x your share of the surplus.

@paulfree14 In the US (I don't know about other countries), the patronage formula can include a mix of hours worked, W-2 income, and seniority.

@mattcropp
thx.
how is this then true?
'Wealth is eqally distributed among the many'
equally in the sense, everyone acording to the same rule? thought then the statement would be also kind of true for 'the corporation'

@paulfree14 Because in a corporation, profit/surplus is distributed on the basis of capital ownership, while in a co-op, it is distributed on the basis of use.

As such, while the profit of a corporation tends to go to augment the wealth of a small minority, the surplus of a co-op is distributed at the same rate to all patrons on the basis of their use, which is inherently a less wealth concentrating formula. Democratic 1 person 1 vote governance also helps set broad vs narrow priorities.

@paulfree14 One long-running strategic debate in the movement is around pricing & the .

Should conform their pricing to market rates, and benefit their members via larger patronage refunds? Or should they seek to minimize their surplus and move the larger market by paying above-market wages or charging below-market prices, thereby narrowing the margins of their capitalist competitors?

@paulfree14 I don't think there's a single correct answer to that question, but that it depends on strategic considerations like a co-op/co-op federation's market power. If you control a substantial portion of the market, it's a very different situation than if you are on the margins trying to survive...

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

coop, talk Show more

@mattcropp clear, concise, elegant. Love it!

@mattcropp

I love when people used to reference Mammon, the demon of greed.

@mattcropp They knew this in 1930 and still corporations dominate the world? I'm disappointed.

@metalbob @mattcropp each generation of radicals must re-educate itself anew, through much adversity.

Everyone else gets reproduction more or less for free.