I'm happy to do unions, go nuts. Grants are a no, not only for the hidden costs that will come out of them but also because we've been told that there are coops gathering capital to begin manufacturing. Let it happen, we don't need to help them nor should we. We are doing perfectly fine on our own.
The civilian economy still has a distinctly "gray dystopia" flavor to it because of all the stuff the planned economy can't be assed to do.
Co-ops are gathering capital to begin manufacturing. Waiting for this process to proceed indefinitely is going to significantly delay that part of the long-delayed postwar recovery, while doing very little that is on net
good for the civilian economy.
If we actually care about this, we need to start pushing
Blue Zone Light Industry harder.
When people legitimately talk about private utilities, I'm going to use what they say to inform my positions.
Okay, but would you mind quoting their exact words and/or telling me who you're talking about? Because I can't tell if that's just one or two people in isolation, or what?
Wait. I thought we did COOPs, which meant Capitalist companies cannot get over 500 employees!? Why is everyone screaming at grants? Most of the grant money would go to the COOPs in the end anyway.
Because it offends against the sanctity and purity of the planned economy.
I mean, I'm not screaming about grants so much as I'm screaming about getting the Thunderbolt out the door this turn, we already delayed a turn and by all accounts that was a turn too long.
The Thunderbolt, that's the URLS system, yes? I think most of us are still calling it URLS...
There is a reason why I weeks ago talked about wanting Unions combined with COOPs. Because the former will put even more democratic pressure on any predatorilly misbehaving COOP (where even the worst offender COOP would already behave less predatorilly than a classical Late Capitalist Corporation).
Ehhh, yes and no.
See, at a co-op, most problems with how the company treats the workers are addressed at the shareholders' meeting, because the shareholders and the workers are the same group of people.
There are about six kinds of predatory behavior that enterprises can engage in:
1) Screwing over their suppliers.
2) Screwing over their customers.
3) Screwing over their contractors.
4) Screwing over their workers
collectively
5) Screwing over
specific groups of workers.
6) Screwing over
the world with externalities, including people who don't have any specific relationship with the enterprise in question.
...
In a command economy, all these things remain possible. I's just that (1) and (3) become the domain of bureaucracy and office politics. And (2), (4), (5), and (6) become situations where the only recourse is to start writing letters to people higher up the political hierarchy in hopes that they can grab the Department of Economic Planning by the throat and shake them until they stop misbehaving.
In a system where non-state enterprises exist, different problems require different solutions. (1), (2), (3), and (6) are mostly solved by government regulations. The action of the market itself can
sometimes help to solve
some of the problems associated with (1) through (3), though it is super unhelpful towards (6).
Making the enterprise a co-op solves (4) but not (5), because a minority of workers can always be outvoted at the shareholder meeting.
And that's where the union comes in. At (5), and also they can help with (3).
...
Most enterprises of any significant size employ a variety of different workers in different roles. For instance, a movie studio will have far more people working on production than it has actors. Policies that abuse the actors will typically be popular with the co-op as a whole, as long as they are profitable and not too many individual production team workers are feeling bad about it. Making the studio a co-op therefore does not solve the problem. But if the actors have their own union
across the entire industry, then it becomes feasible for them to set terms and conditions of their own employment by collective bargaining.
This is how unions help to address (5). They also have benefits for (3) in some scenarios, because 'unions' will somewhat overlap with (for instance) professional associations involving outside laborers with specialties that a co-op needs but doesn't want to integrate into its own structure.
The trick here is that democracy (just this once, listen to a nasty old liberal, he has his points sometimes) requires the combination of majority rule and minority rights. Co-ops impose majority rule on a business enterprise, but do little in and of themselves to enforce minority rights. Unions are more helpful for establishing minority rights within each enterprise, and also at an industry-wide level.
On the other hand, even this does not help solve problems of the co-op screwing over people who
don't work for that particular co-op... But that's a problem that cannot be solved by workplace democracy. It has to be solved by old-fashioned regular political democracy.