*Anarcissie* <anarcissie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1186116498.790523.234240@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Aug 3, 12:26 am, "brique" <briquen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Dan Clore <cl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Given the new ground that ROC-NY is trying to cover -- the creation
of
> > > a worker cooperative-type restaurant -- it's hardly surprising that
> > > there's conflict among the members of the co-op as this very
difficult
> > > model begins to take shape," Carroll said. "It's unfortunate that
> > > litigation has to be the consequence of these unresolved conflicts,
> > > because of the promise of what it's about . . . carving out a new
> > > definition of who's an employer -- an employer who is an owner but
also
> > > a worker, and there's a little bit of chaos inherent," he said.
> >
> > Maybe they should have done a bit of research. In the UK the
Industrial
> > Common Owner****p Movement has several decades of experience in this
field,
> > along with model constitutions, rules, etc. all of which have been put
into
> > practice with varying degrees of business success. And if anyone is
worried
> > about such awful socialist liberalism..... the legislation was passed
under
> > Thatchers rule, the sponsoring MP being none other than Norman
Tebbit.......
>
> Americans are pretty carefully kept from knowing anything
> about anything but traditional authoritarian capitalist business
> models by both the schools and the media. You can see this
> on Usenet, where over the years dozens of people have
> informed me that there are no viable, functioning communes
> or coops. That may be changing now that anyone can look
> them up on the Internet, but it's changing pretty slowly.
> Consequently every cooperative effort starts from square 1,
> if not square zero.
>
True, the best way to stop people looking for an alternative is to first
convince them that none exist....
>
|
