Worker owned businesses are the future. People want a say in their future, their communities and their workplace. This is democracy 2.0. This is what leading intellectuals like Noam Chomsky have been advocating for years. For humanity to progress to the next level of civilization this is one of the trends that must happen.
+We r One So true, the question is how fast will it go from here. In 09 me and 4 students at a bachelor school for sewing, designing and teaching startede a little "forening" as we call it here in Denmark, where it only takes 3 people to start such a cooperative. Beeing the oldest one with experince from earlier companies, I surgested, that our forening, Kolonihaven.com should maintain 3-5% of each of our design sold in the shop, to generate stability, compared to the 45% mentioned here. Unfortunatly non of the other members thought so, and today, I sit alone with the forening, and now just have other designers in commission. We had concensus democracy, I did not get it on the clip here, wheater Mondragon also had that.
@@christelmayland Because people are very much uninformed even in 2020. It is my hope that people will open up their minds and begin looking for alternatives to be in a competitive job with strong ethics.
@@lesleykramer7207 this video is FULL of BULLSHIT, and you are the one who is eating it !! YOU are NOT educated , you are brainwashed !! " Professor " BAD Wolff put his " diplomas " in front of you , so you cannot see how STUPID he is !!
we must examine the social-psychological relationship between intrinsic motivation and external incentives of individuals and groups. it seems that the co-op offers both satisfaction of motivation (emotional/spiritual/relational satisfaction) and incentives (material satisfaction such as monetary pay and health care benefits). great video, great work!
You mean the board cannot decide to move the business to Mexico without the support of he workers. Hmm I kinda like that. Can they decide to stop manufacturing bicycles for example and switch to some other product. They can do that. Really? Democratically! That is a great idea.
How do you make sure everyone works together well for benefits of a co-op? How do they resolve work conflicts? Greece should start co-op soon. They need it.
Felicetanka, Just for your information, in the USA also exist CO-OPs, nothing new here . More than 80% of all businesses in USA are SMALL business owned by family or small group of people . Please, correct your poor knowledge about USA .
So what you're saying is that Mondragon is privately owned? And the private owners decide what to do with it? Like literally every other business on the planet? Geee, how revolutionary.
Moondragon is capitalist. It is owned by private individuals and is for profit. That is the only requirement to be considerd capitalist. That leaves many options on how you run an enterprise. If a worker-owner leaves they can take out their share. In a socialist system the collective (state) owns it and those who leave can't take out their share, also it is non profit.
1 share and he has a say in the operation of the company. What if it's a high tech semiconductor fabrication plant? He owns a share, does he know anything about semiconductor manufacturing, production and distribution and the industry to make a decision? I've only seen coops in farming, grocery stores pig farms (yes pig farm), farmers market and other nom-tech industry. How would a coop work in a big multinational high tech organization? Or let say a hospital coop. How would that work? That startup cost is huge, liability and insurance, etc etx
I'm sure there's a sophisticated system in place to manage these situations. I don't know the details, but however it's done, the point is, it obviously works at scale and everyone has been happy with it for 60 years.
Publix is an American company that has been doing this for over 20 yrs and they treat their employees well as their customers bcuz it matters! These other corporations try to exploit their employees while paying them low wages. No reason why more American companies could follow a "Publix" corporate style approach....
OMG, the government doesn't make a co-op. It's a company. Find 6 people that want to work with you, but you don't get to be the boss. We don't have Communism, you're allowed to start a company, you just have to do a lot of work. And since you're not a boss, you can't fire the others if they don't pull their share. Good luck!
Eduardo Camilo, professor Wolff will take any kind of currencies for his bullshit teachings . There are plenty of stupid people on this planet who will believe him and more over pay him for his delusional opinion on capitalism and his dreams about socialism .
@@martinko4086 Instead of talking bullshit yourself, what don't you show us your own economic and political theories and elaborate more. How about that? Can you refute in any way what Professor Wolff has stated here? Can't wait for you to "enlighten" us with your bullshit. 😂😂😂😂
Some assertions seem questionable: no economical aid from the central power (though there was cultural repression during the dictatorship indeed) or ethnic purity (much of the work force came from other regions of Spain).
I take issue with Wolff referring to the Mondragon system as "Anti-capitalist" at about 43:45. He has said they make "profits;" He has said they enter into "agreements;" He says they enter covenants not to compete. How is any of that: not going on in a "Capitalist" system? All of that goes on. Any US corporation is free to organize itself to be run like a Mondragon system via its articles of incorporation and no lawyer would call it "anti-capitalist." ... Dr. Wolff has a very good point about the perpetuating of jobs being the gravamen of the organizational goals of the Mondragon corporation; and also the limiting of pay ratios for high level administrators. But still there is a recognition of disparate pay based on merit. None of that is anti-capitalist. ... "Anti-gross disparate income distribution" seems to be Dr, Wolff's main concern. But he seems to think it is the goal of man to work. Apparently Dr. Wolff has never enjoyed a year off to do anything he wants. It's how important things often get invented; just ask the Wright Brothers.
@ Patrick B. - Have read many books referring to "Marx". Dr. Wolff has discredited himself too much for me to care to seek his opinion on Marxian economics; so no I have not looked at those. Other authors have confirmed that many of Marx's predictions are coming true. They leave out why. It's because of the Adam Smith agreement with Marx that the "economists" keep overlooking.
I listend to Wolff's lectures and I suspect he wants to sneak in socialism through the back door. He advocates that if a company closes the workers should have the right to buy the company first. Of course he also wants *the government* to buy the company for the workers and wants the government to bankroll the coop startups. This means that the governement will have share in it and is no longer privately owned. It's insidious if you think about it.
Cyrus Lupercal Worker control of the means of production already *IS* socialism. These cooperatives are an example of socialism. It's not a matter of sneaking socialism through the back door. Socialism does not mean the government owns the means of production; that's state capitalism.
Dan, my knowledge of the Wright Brothers enterprises is sketchy at best, but it is my understanding that they converted their bicycle business into an aircraft business, and used the profits from the former to finance the latter. there is no mention in anything i've read about them (which again is not much), to suggest that they took time off to 'invent'. they pretty much did everything on the fly, as it were. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Cycle_Company
It sounds like you're talking about Marxist revolutionary Socialism. You need to send young party members to be thugs in the poor neighborhoods to enforce the power of the central party members. This is how you'll find your Trotsky and Stalins. Marx actually said that the revolution would have to happen in the industrial center of Europe, so Germany. Such a co-op would be counterproductive to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat since they wouldn't want to overthrow the corporation they own. But you need to inspire all the workers of the world to seize the companies. So maybe you can seize the Mondragon companies from their owners, for the revolution.
you wouldnt because the workers already own the means of production and any process of eliminating markets or currency will lead to a decrease in quality of life all across the bard.
Notes: Eroski Grocery part. 42,000 workers. U 3,400 students of its University. Prof from Cornel Biz. Banking Econ centre of city of 100,000. Condos for all. Gen Assembly. of each part, it hires. CEO and dept heads. All must attend evaluations. PAID TIME.Debate direction. Moving, what tech to use. They bid for best machine at lowest prices. They help each other's parts. 10% is fund for coordination. 45% revenue is for growing. 45% is shared profit; That is their pension. More, bonus &% of your total pension. $ for development. Can change rules. Ratio 4.50 top earner than low worker. Use as you like. This might be called DemSocialism, not sure.
This reminds me of the way China operated before the country switched to capitalism, especially the point system part :) I think for a corporation it's possible to operate in this way because 10% of the profit is enough. But its not enough for even the smallest country.
China never switched to capitalism - this is a western way of looking at China based on a lack of understanding and propaganda. China is a communist country and China operates a version of free market communism.
that corporation is a pure expression of Capitalism, where the shareholders/owner are also employees. People are free to start companies as owners and also work themselves in those companies, as employees. There is NOTHING in capitalism that prevents that.
Yes, as a Marxist, I agree. Privately owned 'worker co-ops' are capitalist enterprises. For socialism we need such enterprises to be owned by the PUBLIC, with workers' democracy internally, connected to socialist democracy in broader society.
Basically, the corporate board at Hy-Vee gets the guillotine. Okay... *fine*, that's kinda hyperbole, but trying to pass off some shit like the benefits fund being a majority shareholder in the company is the same thing as employee ownership is worth a brick through a window. Somebody, please, key the CEO's car in the parking lot.
Sounds wonderful but then again so does a commune. Don't tell me that there are no downsides to it. I would like to see the other side of the coin and don't tell me that it's all good news.
Main issue is that it still works within capitalism so to stay competitive as a whole, workers kinda have to act against their own interests, or else they lose the business entirely from competition and go to worse conditions under a normal capitalist corporation.
@@seanwaddell2659 My fear is that a huge cooperative can become like a small conformist soviet union with social control, black-mailing, silencing of every critique and stabbings in the back among power-clans. Often socialist humanist vision is rooted on too optimistic view of human beings and communities. There is always a counter-point to the idea of protection and solidarity. There is a price to negotiate and pay because the blanket in every situation of life is always too short.
Everything he said sounds wonderful but for the fact that the 45% that goes to the "owners" is in fact held as their "pension." That sounds like a typical capitalistic move to take as much of the profit as possible and use it as they wish. Also, the great idea of removing competition, great for monopolizing a section of the market.
The money paid out in pensions is purchasing power to keep the system going. REMEMBER ANY INCOME FROM A COOPERATIVE IS SPENT ON PRODUCTS NOT SAVED OR SENT OFF SHORE AS IT IS DONE IN currently BY THE WEALTHY Did you forget that the decisions are made democratically by the workers and not by the big rich boss who can take off with all his money to China or Mexico. A Workers Cooperative will compete (and successfully) against companies run the old fashioned way by private corporations Competing against another cooperative in the same part of the country is ridiculous. That would be a race to the bottom and hurt both of them. Remember competition can destroy comanies and JOBS.WITH ANY EXTRA CASH TO INVEST THEY WOULD PREFER TO CHANGE THE PRODUCT LINE. Get rid of the idea that Worker`s Cooperatives are anticapitalist. They use the existing capitalist system to hold resources (incuding bank balances in Credit Unions, not commercial banks) to purchase supplies, machinery, to sell products and to advertise. They love the capitalist system but find cooperative ideas less wasteful. The system evens out wealth and if universal would smooth out the ups and downs of the system. Think it through.
Board members here in Asia (even in govt positions) are paid by the millions for doing nothing.I hope that pay increase limiting pay out to 6.5 times will have an audience to policy makers someday.The greed of entitlement will make you puke!
I hope the Basque don't welcome in mass immigration. It would be pathetic if they replaced themselves like other Europeans, ethnically. I love them too much.
> Wot Wot , you are wrong , if you saying CO _OPS are less likely to " Go negative " . How many states and countries , who has this "socialist model " went bankrupt ?? Do your math . I can say the same, how many capitalist countries go bankrupt and sleep with empty stomachs? There 1.2 billion people that still have no access to electricity. A 7 yr old child right now is mining cobalt in Africa for your smart phone. I won't ask you to do your math, because, it is almost impossible to put all the factors into an equation. An economic system is not the only cause of a country going "bankrupt". --- Our topic here however is about *worker-cooperatives* going negative. And not other the type of Socialism done in the USSR that you seem to be fixated on.
No, they aren’t. Capitalism is when “the means of production” are owned by those with capital. Socialism is when workers own the means of production (i.e. Worker Owned and Operated Cooperatives) Command economies (like the USSR) are where the state owns the means of production.
@@oldmangranny5oldmangranny56 But only if you don't exploit people with it, and use it only for yourself, no peopleless homes in a libertarian society. Also you are talking about "possessions" not "private property".
Obviously cooperatives work....but here's why the template can't expand to near totality: the cooperatives have as customers the great bulk of the rest of the population that is working in traditional capitalist businesses. And so they are sort of like a benign parasite. And look at the automation in use - all that stuff comes the capitalist sector, invented and funded in order to reduce need for workers, or to make more product with the same number of workers. To have a market for more product requires customers who are working in capitalist companies where they enjoy some excess gain from the company's profits---the customers are not all the people working in a capitalist company, just those a ways up from the bottom who make more money than those at the bottom. I don't want to ramble on, but it helps to think about what one person in the vid said: "if workers are not laid off, then they have money to buy products". Now if you think about that for a while, it should become clear that such a scenario is not sustainable across the board as a totality....a machine like that would eventually run down, cuz if people saved money then there would be a lack of money to come back into the coops. Also, I think a successful coop is successful only by having competent people on board. To some extent I would say the coops cherry pick the local population. Perhaps 30 to 40% of the human population is not qualified to own/run a coop. And with regards the success of Mondragons...These benign parasites flourish when much of the rest of the economic community is growing according to tradtional capitalist rules....though things were bad in Spain post WW2, post WW2 marked the beginning of a long and sustained period of huge economic growth in the West, so the Mondragons could not have started at a better time.
rh001YT Look at Germany's Co-determination model where, above a certain number of employees, the corporation must represent the workers on the board of directors-50% of seats, actually. And Germany is one of the most successful capitalists countries in the world. The question is whether, not just giving them representation in managerial decision-making, but also giving workers ownership of the means of production, will continue that fabulous productive trend. I think the answer is obvious: give workers' ownership-let them have skin in the game-and productivity and quality of goods and services will increase.
Jim Zheng Hi! I'm very much in favor of tinkering to find what works best. Germany is not very representative of humans in general. Culturally, and perhaps even due to genetics, Germans are a cut above with perhaps Japanese being a somewhat close second. And every good employee, or good employee/owner, is not representative of the majority of humans. I think the Mondragon model companies are great and if they can continue to survive that's great too. One does have to ask the question, why are there not more of them? And if there were more of them, and more and more and more, what's the breaking point, I mean, when does the increase in productivity and quality of goods reach a point where no more money can be made by increasing the quality, or increasing the productivity of the same number of workers? Cuz eventually, even from the beginning, all businesses face competition and are competing for the same customer group. And I wish to point out that quality of goods is not the only purchasing factor for the the customer, as price is also important. As not all can afford top quality there is actually a solid place in the market for lower quality goods that cost less. So there is no compelling reason for a Mondragon model to pursue top quality, but of course they do have to pursue high productivity. And if high productivity is pursued, then more product must be churned out per employee, if the employee/owners can't be laid off. Then one has to wonder if customer base will buy all that additional product, as they may not. And due to competition, other companies, Mondragon model or not, will also be doing what they can to increase productivity in hopes of gaining a larger market share. So then what? And bear in mind, if a Mondragon model company succeeds in out-competing it's competitors that will mean loss of jobs among the competitors. So a win in one place results in a loss in another - should we not be concerned about them?
*_"Culturally, and perhaps even due to genetics, Germans are a cut above with perhaps Japanese being a somewhat close second."_* This sounds a bit unscientific; sounds like something Hitler would promulgate as propaganda to rile up the nationalist agenda. From what I can tell, there's no genetic difference that is significant enough to correlate with Germanic success. Actually, it's more likely that it's due to environmental advantages, I refer you to Jared Diamond's book _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ where he beautifully explains why Europeans have been so successful, and other continents not so much. *_"One does have to ask the question, why are there not more of them? "_* As most countries in the world have a capitalist market system, is it surprising that most businesses are set up that way? The system is simply rigged to produce more of these types of businesses. Income inequality under capitalism is another reason, because to start-up a cooperative, the members need to contribute capital to start it up. But where is their capital going to come from? Also, there's a reason why the media never talks about the cooperative business model: because they have a vested interest in the capitalist model, because they are owned by greedy capitalists like Murdoch. *_"And bear in mind, if a Mondragon model company succeeds in out-competing it's competitors that will mean loss of jobs among the competitors. So a win in one place results in a loss in another - should we not be concerned about them?"_* Well, if the competitors go bankrupt, and demand for the goods and services are relatively high, then the employees can simply find new jobs at cooperative firms. Because since demand is high, the cooperative firm, upon decimating their competitors, are going to have an increase in demand. Therefore they are incentivised to hire more workers.
Jim Zheng Jerod Diamond, even before his work leading to his famous book, already had a biased assumption that genetics don't play a significant role in the development of civilization. So he looked for another explanation, leaving out genetics entirely, which was hardly scientific. It was a while ago that I read his book, but I don't recall he gave much consideration to India, which from the time of Alexander, did have regular contact and trade with Europe and all of Asia, except perhaps Japan and the Philipines. India also had plenty of food and grains, good agricultural land, lots of water, as well as coal, and some iron, but perhaps not all that much iron. Still we know Indians were smelting iron and experimenting with alloys, as evidenced by the Iron Pillar of Delhi, which is hundreds of years old and still rust-free. Even if we agree that India was slightly off the East-West path of developmental genesis, the lack of development there, relative to Europe, particularly Germany (Prussia) is (negatively) out of proportion with her constant contact with the East-West back and forth flow across Eurasia. So India stands as a bit of a refutation of Diamond's biased scheme. Also, when European invention and science began to take off in the 1700s, only one place on earth really got into the game quickly, during the 1800s, and that was Japan. Japan could not be further from Germany/Europe. Eastern USA was perhaps a little ahead of Japan due to contact with Europe, but the Wild Wild West of the USA was more backwards and less developed than Japan even as late 1900. So it is interesting also, in contrast to India, that Japan was able to move so quickly while others around the world dragged their feet. There could be environmental reasons why other regions lagged, like climate, and of course European Colonialism probably slowed development in the colonies. In the late 1800s and early 1900s some Chinese students were exposed to European maths and science and it was found that many of them took to those subjects easily. More recently, IQ studies have shown East Asians to have a little edge over Caucasians, but I don't know if there have been any studies comparing East Asians to Germans, so.... From some of what is known about genetics and gene flow and complex dynamic systems, like humans and their genes moving around and thinking and building, it would not be surprising if a small genetic advantage played out in a big way, similar to the so-called butterfly effect, which is an exageration, but still makes the point that small differences in initial conditions will, in a complex system, often lead to very big differences. Now back to Mondragon: for any company to succeed over time equipment must be upgraded fairly regularly - the old tossed out for new higher productivity equipment. Should a Mondragon company knock out some competitors one can't assume that company can just hire the newly-out-of-work, as they may be in a distant region. Even if in the same city, at best only a few would be hired on to the Mondragon company, since the Mondragon company's high productivity equipment would allow fewer workers to meet the customer demand. And, the Mondragon company need not feel compelled to hire the newly unemployed, but instead increase the price of their product and profit from the slight scarcity caused by their competitors going belly up. A company fashioned after the Mondragon model, if it is to survive, must be as cut-throat as any business, except in their one aspect of a policy of non-layoff. But if too many companies followed the Modragon model progress would be retarded, maybe even frozen. Then one would see calls for protectionism, which only retards things faster. I've heard there are employee-owned breweries in the USA. Good for them. However, their customer base is all those making money in the traditional capitalist system. that's why I referred to Mondragons as benign parasites. Nothing wrong with a benign parasite - the human gut is full of them, and they make digestion possible. And then there is the issue of a need for huge capital investment in new tech. Only the traditional capitalist model allows for huge investments in new tech. So if you are in favor of progress you must be in favor of traditional capitalism - for instance, escaping dependence of fossil fuels is very capital intensive. But even when fossil fuels is largely replaced, there will still be customers for beer from employee owned breweries.
rh001YT With regards to the nature vs. nurture paragraph, I agree that initial small differences in genetics could, over time, exponentially grow in massive differences. However, that's exactly the point: the initial conditions were tiny and the final stage was largely molded by the complex environment. Therefore the environment is the more significant factor when we're dealing with complex sociological phenomena. Using the gene's-eye-view to analyses sociology is a lazy way of doing things; far more could be understood if we looked at the environmental conditions instead of the genetic disparities, of which are insignificant. *_"A company fashioned after the Mondragon model, if it is to survive, must be as cut-throat as any business, except in their one aspect of a policy of non-layoff. But if too many companies followed the Modragon model progress would be retarded, maybe even frozen. Then one would see calls for protectionism, which only retards things faster. "_* Why does it need to be "cut-throat? How does that follow logically from the premises? Mondragon has no income inequality problems, no environmental problems, and no community problems. Why? Because of their corporate structure. Since the workers own everything, and they cooperate to form the salaries of everyone there, of course they won't give a 400:1 pay ratio for CEOs:Workers like America. Of course they won't offshore their factories to China or India, because they would lose all their jobs. Of course they won't pollute the environment, because they actually LIVE in the local environment. All the issues of a tradition capitalist firm is rectified simply by the corporate structure of Mondragon.
Justin Blumenthal Donald Edward No, Democracy is a State governed by its citizens for it's citizens. The founders conceived of the modern Federation of States where the States have Democratic not power based Populist participation in the Union as opposed to all prior unions which fail to recognize Democratic principles when the member States had unequal participation in the Union as in kingdoms and colony empires. Marx's critique of Capital is insufficient and irrelevant because he misapprehended or misrepresented the fundamental mechanism of accumulation, and had no solutions which didn't result in worse circumstances, unlike ACTUAL Socialism which was not conceived as a Revolutionary steppingstone to Revolutionary Communism, but rather was established a generation before Marx became political. The problem isn't with Bernie Sanders who is inspired by Socialism, the problem is with Marxists like Wolff who corrupt the concept of Socialism away from the Liberal Utopianism. Even Smith didn't advocate for Capitalism, and Anti-capitalists are often more interested in breaking systems than in supporting everyone as in Utopianism. You ask me to look up the entymology of Democracy, and yet you did not seem to value Aristotle ditectly clarifying the forms of government. Most every post-Greek writing seems to conflate Populism with Democracy, (intentionally?) losing the entire point of Democracy over the ages. This unfortunately includes Benjamin Franklin and Marx alike. Modern entomological analysis often fails to distinguish between majority rule through popularity which disenfranchises minority voices and Democratic Rule in which all citizens are equally subject to rule of law, where Civic duty is not assigned by vote but by sortition, and where elections are temporary and distributional not concentrations of power. At least Benjamin Franklin took inspiration from the Native Longhouse and the Founders conceived of the solution to the downfall of Archaic Greek Democracy. They simply failed to implement the Democracy among the citizens of the Colony States while conceiving the (Con)Federal Union framework. Marx simply undercut the Liberal Enlightenment by reempowering societal class division, which made Oligarchy by Bolshevism inevitable, according to the Iron Law of Oligarchy. According to Marx it should have happened in Germany not Russia, but I still don't see how that would have prevented autocratic seizure of power, it just would have been a Different Stalin. Perhaps you may have been unclear in your solutions, but all I can glean is populism. If you don't grasp the solutions that have historically had success, then you should not continue the discussion. Arrogantly disengaging the last safeguard before total disaster is a very Soviet approach to the problems of Capitalist concentration, so agitation against the Electoral College in the name of "Democracy" is at the very least... counterproductive. Donald Edward's answer: “No, Democracy is a State governed by it's (sic) citizens”. Yes, and its citizens elect representatives. It is called representative democracy. Any time somebody sits down and designs a constitution from scratch and expects the most important elements to last indefinitely through all ages and conditions is expecting too much. A country where the leader (prime minister, President, whatever) loses the confidence of the people as has Trump has would need an election to choose a new administration. The problem is ongoing. “Marx's critique of Capital is insufficient and irrelevant”. He achieved what he set out to do. He could have suggested solutions but didn’t. Workers the world unite and throw off your chains and the abolition of private property does not do it for most people. Marx thought that change would come by revolution and the temper of times suggests why he believed that. Democratic Socialist think change should come by evolution as is happening in some countries. The entrenchment of the wealthy class or as Sanders puts it the 1 % in the USA makes that problematic. Your discussion of populism versus democracy leaves me cold. If in a FAIR election most of the PEOPLE decide that universal health care is the way to go then the SOCIAL legislation should be enacted. We should beware of the word SOCIALISM since it means different things to different people. It was used in USSR as bait. Well, Richard Wolff has at least described the various socialist solutions to the problems of the continued accumulation of wealth (and of poverty). When where and whether they work and for how long is the question. It would be amusing if the British were told. Nobody can be Prime Minister if they don’t carry North Yorkshire and Ipswich or if the French were told you can’t be President if you don’t carry Reims and Porte St. Denis. But that is the sort of thing I hear Americans say. Isn’t that silly though it may well be true and that is the tragedy. Maybe you will one day hear an America say I am not going to vote because I don’t live in a place where my vote would make a difference.
I think that ALL fair minded people would opine that the current system in the USA is not democratic. No system is perfect but I believe that the so-called Westminster form of government ( parliamentary) is the most flexible. Churchill had that in mind when he said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” He would no doubt point to what has been going on in the UK, since the Brexit referendum, as illustrative. Obviously, there are those who do not like democracy (etymologically defined) because they find its results are not to THEIR liking. What goes on in the USA is illustrative of that. Churchill, who put country above party, changed his party affiliation twice. I doubt whether that could happen significantly in this country, the USA. Stay well.
36:09 "once there is a co-op in a given area, no other can go there. no head to head competition." Perhaps this is to prevent supersaturation of a particular product in a given location?? too many washing machines for too little demand? not sure...but with the 2008 recession China had loads of warehouses filled with un-sellable "stuff"-- a complete liability. perhaps the "head to head" competition would result in a sort of EGO-DRIVEN ARBITRARY excess surplus of unsellable products??? when children play competitive games, such as Monopoly, you can see this ego sort of emerge and greed ensues...
@@distortiontildeafness Monopoly was originally created as a demonstration of the problems of Capitalism by adherents of the Henry George school of Economics. Look up Georgism, far better than Marxism.
I think its to avoid trying to force their coop counterparts to have to pay too steep of a loss on contract bids which may affect the workers who are producing the products, get paid less or hours cut to make the contract or numbers work
British co ops not as good big private enterprises and used to suffer from corruption Co op is a great idea but only in theory and obviously in special cases
Spain History of Spain how islam reached there and how was retreated .. القرآن - سورۃ نمبر 39 الزمر آیت نمبر 8 أَعـوذُ بِاللهِ مِنَ الشَّيْـطانِ الرَّجيـم بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ وَاِذَا مَسَّ الۡاِنۡسَانَ ضُرٌّ دَعَا رَبَّهٗ مُنِيۡبًا اِلَيۡهِ ثُمَّ اِذَا خَوَّلَهٗ نِعۡمَةً مِّنۡهُ نَسِىَ مَا كَانَ يَدۡعُوۡۤا اِلَيۡهِ مِنۡ قَبۡلُ وَجَعَلَ لِلّٰهِ اَنۡدَادًا لِّيُـضِلَّ عَنۡ سَبِيۡلِهٖ ؕ قُلۡ تَمَتَّعۡ بِكُفۡرِكَ قَلِيۡلًا ۖ اِنَّكَ مِنۡ اَصۡحٰبِ النَّارِ ۞ Translation: And when adversity touches man, he calls upon his Lord, turning to Him [alone]; then when He bestows on him a favor from Himself, he forgets Him whom he called upon before, and he attributes to Allah equals to mislead [people] from His way. Say, "Enjoy your disbelief for a little; indeed, you are of the companions of the Fire."
Question .. Its not left القرآن - سورۃ نمبر 85 البروج آیت نمبر 8 أَعـوذُ بِاللهِ مِنَ الشَّيْـطانِ الرَّجيـم بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ وَمَا نَقَمُوۡا مِنۡهُمۡ اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ يُّؤۡمِنُوۡا بِاللّٰهِ الۡعَزِيۡزِ الۡحَمِيۡدِۙ ۞ Translation: And they resented them not except because they believed in Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy,
Film .. Responsibility in matter of what you see in heavens and earth because what is present here and there and what you do, you will be answerable for it. Keep the record and explore because Allah is watching .. القرآن - سورۃ نمبر 57 الحديد آیت نمبر 5 أَعـوذُ بِاللهِ مِنَ الشَّيْـطانِ الرَّجيـم بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ لَهٗ مُلۡكُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضِؕ وَاِلَى اللّٰهِ تُرۡجَعُ الۡاُمُوۡرُ ۞ Translation: His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. And to Allah are returned [all] matters.
