How does that work when hundreds of millions of apes want their piece of the pie, and many want far more? You can’t change human nature, that’s off the table.
Actually, the anthropological evidence directly contradicts this. Humans evolved as a cooperative species - we survived because we shared resources and worked together, not because we out-greeded each other. Hunter-gatherers actively discouraged hoarding. Modern behavioral economics confirms this: people reject unfair offers even when it costs them money, and babies show fairness instincts before they’re even socialized.
We’re not wired for pure greed. We’re conditionally cooperative - which traits dominate depends heavily on incentive structures and context.
On specifics:
Worker co-ops vs unions: Unions negotiate but don’t control decisions. Co-ops give workers actual ownership and decision-making power. The incentive structure fundamentally shifts - you’re not negotiating who’s maximizing quarterly returns, you or distant shareholders, you’re making decisions for your own workplace long-term.
Scale: Mondragon Corporation in Spain has 80,000+ worker-owners. Not 350M, but proves it works beyond small scale. You’d likely need a mix - co-ops, strong unions, public options for infrastructure, maybe some small scale traditional firms.
Regulation: Every system needs enforcement - agreed. The question is what we regulate and who has power. Currently we heavily regulate workers (what they can organize, strike over) while giving capital tremendous freedom. Why not flip that?
Concrete steps that aren’t utopian:
Mandatory worker board representation (Germany already does this)
Union sectoral bargaining instead of company-by-company
Tax incentives for employee ownership
Actually enforce antitrust laws
But at that point is this even still capitalism? Worker co-ops replace private property with shared property - workers collectively own the enterprise, but only while they work there. You can’t inherit it, can’t be an absentee owner collecting dividends. You can’t just hoard the labour of somebody else for eternity. When you leave, your stake goes to the remaining workers. That’s fundamentally different from capitalist property relations, even if markets still exist. Call it market socialism, economic democracy, or just a shared property economy - the label matters less than recognizing you’ve changed something foundational, not just tweaked regulations.
So yeah your union idea is solid, but history clearly shows unions gradually lose ground without structural power. The ownership question - who actually controls the enterprise - might be the key.
And personally I wouldn’t call it capitalism if capitalists aren’t the ones who own everything.
Actually, the anthropological evidence directly contradicts this. Humans evolved as a cooperative species - we survived because we shared resources and worked together, not because we out-greeded each other. Hunter-gatherers actively discouraged hoarding. Modern behavioral economics confirms this: people reject unfair offers even when it costs them money, and babies show fairness instincts before they’re even socialized.
We’re not wired for pure greed. We’re conditionally cooperative - which traits dominate depends heavily on incentive structures and context.
On specifics:
Worker co-ops vs unions: Unions negotiate but don’t control decisions. Co-ops give workers actual ownership and decision-making power. The incentive structure fundamentally shifts - you’re not negotiating who’s maximizing quarterly returns, you or distant shareholders, you’re making decisions for your own workplace long-term.
Scale: Mondragon Corporation in Spain has 80,000+ worker-owners. Not 350M, but proves it works beyond small scale. You’d likely need a mix - co-ops, strong unions, public options for infrastructure, maybe some small scale traditional firms.
Regulation: Every system needs enforcement - agreed. The question is what we regulate and who has power. Currently we heavily regulate workers (what they can organize, strike over) while giving capital tremendous freedom. Why not flip that?
Concrete steps that aren’t utopian:
But at that point is this even still capitalism? Worker co-ops replace private property with shared property - workers collectively own the enterprise, but only while they work there. You can’t inherit it, can’t be an absentee owner collecting dividends. You can’t just hoard the labour of somebody else for eternity. When you leave, your stake goes to the remaining workers. That’s fundamentally different from capitalist property relations, even if markets still exist. Call it market socialism, economic democracy, or just a shared property economy - the label matters less than recognizing you’ve changed something foundational, not just tweaked regulations.
So yeah your union idea is solid, but history clearly shows unions gradually lose ground without structural power. The ownership question - who actually controls the enterprise - might be the key.
And personally I wouldn’t call it capitalism if capitalists aren’t the ones who own everything.