Economic Democracy: An Alternative to Pure Capitalism or Socialism

Thanks for post. Thoughtful. I don't know the territory--but I suspect cooperative ownership has been most prevalent in the agricultual sector. And I really fail to grasp how that ownership structure has led to a more just, sustainable economic democracy. I like it. I just don't see prgamatically that it delivers what is argued for here.

I think any political system that encourages and incentivises voluntary cooperatism is a system devoted to permitting people to freely associate because the benefits of that free asssociation and mutual cooperation far outweigh the advantages of exploiting one's neighbor. Forcing such a sysem upon society without the freedom to choose how we associate with one another is no better than the exploitative crony capitalism we have today.

I think the key is for whatever protective agency-in the United States it is the governmental agencies-exists to protect the people who are supposedly free, that agency needs to not play favorites. It is also imperative that we do not manipulate a market so that the wealthy or mega-corporations become controlling mechanisms the way our society has become in the past few decades (people blame this on a free market, but it is really a market with government support of the mega corporations). I'm not against mega corporations per se, because if they indeed became mega based on creating the best possible product or service and everyone legitimately chose that company, that's not a monopoly, that's just a darn good entrepreneur. But when corporations stay large and "mega" not by their own virtue but by crushing the competition through use of force (i.e. the help of the government), that's pretty despicable.

Cooperative ownership is a bit of misnomer. Co-op's have been used in Agriculture, buying clubs, and community gardens, where private interests band together for the advantages of market and scale, share/divide/hire labor, operate with a small profiet in design and share dividends which those who use the co-op. A non-farmer in a rural community may purchase his gas from the co-op, and will be entitled to a dividen based on his use of the product. His dividend will of course be much less than the larger farmer who purchases and markets much of his operation through the local co-op. The dividend then becomes an aid in retirement. Economic democracy, also involves a high priority on public institutions. Community education vs private education, public bridges and roads, vs a privately owned toll crossing, public parks, boat launches, windbreaks, and seats at bus stops, hospitals and public health centers. Remember a simplier day when walking down the streets of a shopping area, or a mall, you dragged you parents to the drinking fountain for free public water? Now we buy bottled water, generally more expensive than the pop despensed from the same machine. It's a part of what we know as privatism, and with many communities selling their water distribution to a private company, and not owned democratically by each person who uses the water, we are seeing a major away from democracy. Private ownership is compatable within socialism, but privatism, which neglects to regard the impact upon society -- is not compatable with democracy.

Choice is an essential of any democratic relationship. The breakup of public utilities like the bell system was a response to this reality. The difficulty today is that international mega corporations control the supply lines for the materials which small business depends upon, and increasingly we have had tax befits for them, while neglecting the infrastructure which all business depends upon. There are no easy answers, and no system can protect all individuals from failure - either through their own fault or outside circumstance. This however does not prevent a society from goal setting to maximize the potential for the greatest number to achieve security within the freedom of their choices. I remain committed to a strong society, where value is placed upon the public good. Public education, health care, transportation, parks and recreation as well as commitment to the arts.

Thank you for your comment, exploitive socialism is a danger. We all know that any government which can fully provide for you, also makes you dependent and will attempt to fully control you. There goes the choice, essential to democracy. This is where federal guidelines for basic standards, with local control of the services is essential. I suspect that you are for smaller government, and I would agree that smaller is better in most cases. Interstate highways are wonderful, but well maintained roads and streets in our neighborhoods, need local government. Small units which prioritize, fund, build and maintain those essential services. Smaller has been used interchangeably for cheaper, and it's not necessarily so. Smaller, local government units, should be better and more efficient. It's the co-op idea, so the gated community of wealthy residents tax and maintain to a different standard, then the older neighborhood of the central city. This is an acknowledgment of reality, and the freedom of choice expressed by those who live there. However, every neighborhood needs access with safe roads, with police and fire protection, education and basic health care. They need clean water, sewer, and electric and in our generation access to communication services. There are no pure types, and most not mutually exclusive. The challenge is to find balance, and to establish communication which leads to cooperation between those of different points of view.

Please give me more information. I love it, Thanks again.