i reply :

venture communism

now thats a cute label

as to the ...topic
you've come to the right man mate

i spent 20 odd 1980-2000
...very odd years....
in the midst of my own retail biz meditating on
what i called
socialism in one company

you are on to seversal of its many many rocky nodes

"each worker has one
ownership share, no more and no less, and each share counts equally
with any other for democratic management. But I ran into problems
right away. Should they be transferable?"

right there the bi-fork turns to a torture tool
and not to be content with that ....

and you being a tit twister with a kind face

add
two more tines :

one more deep question

"What about distribution of
income for unequal labor?"

and one pervasive toxin
to be unavoidably ingested at some points along the path
and which will kill off the wild ducks...eventually

the law of value

ie

" The outside world is going to be setting a
lot of costs and influencing the value of the labor..."
not only on the input side which altruism might restrain
but also by setting alot of sale prices too

incentives competition innovations credit lines scale effects
pretty soon your either reinventing US STEEL

or
creating a self enclosing manor with a cash crop or two

we want something that will spread wide and far
so far no firm form we'd call a co op
has both servived long and outside a few very special niche markets

my favorite...saw mills

as an accused and convicted business fraudster and marxist manque

my quick answer

there's a fucking good set of reasons why

the ever ellusive optimality of form has so far escaped our invention
like fusion electric power
...no viable form of the associated producers firm has emerged and prospered and grown and found wide market by market product by product application

the fucker has remained
the holy grail of socialism since owen

"there is a labor based cooperative I know about and
they have worked things out pretty well. But -- and this is a big one
-- the founder is in his seventies. Now the model is working quite, as
I said, even through troubles. They're even looking to expand a bit,
but I don't think you can wholly discount the personality of the
fellow who got things going. There seems to be a benevolent emeritus
function at work. What happens when he's gone? "

founder finitude ...a crisis in all entrepreneurial settings

let me suggest this:

are you out to save a few souls make a few lives richer ???

take the turn that may lead to jim jones libertarian plant eater
turned kool aide purveyer ???

for myself
long ago i put a low value on my own soul

and as a confirmed bigot agin featherless bi peds

i've looked to work on the whole of society

macro doc

so far i've only reconfirmed

we gotta destroy this one to save it

>From: "J. Alva Scruggs"
>To: "jake shearer"
>Subject: Venture communism
>Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 02:03:48 -0500
>
>http://www.telekommunisten.net/WhatIsVentureCommunism
>
>There's an offshoot of Mutualism I'd forgotten about.
>
>I was reading through LBO Talk, thanks to Father Smith's promotion
>of
>the Cox quote, and came across Dymitri Kleiner, whose work I'd seen
>before on some anarchist boards. It reminds me a little of some
>co-op
>business models. I've even tried to come up with one myself. My
>direct
>experience of lefty businesses is that most of them quickly turn
>into
>liberal businesses. Past a certain point in growth, they turn into
>your standard command and control model. I had ideas similar to a
>couple of Kleiner's for my model. For example, each worker has one
>ownership share, no more and no less, and each share counts equally
>with any other for democratic management. But I ran into problems
>right away. Should they be transferable? Someone might wish to leave
>or give away their share as a gift. What are the provisions for
>buying
>shares back, if things don't work out? What about distribution of
>income for unequal labor? The outside world is going to be setting a
>lot of costs and influencing the value of the labor. And so on.
>
>That being said, there is a labor based cooperative I know about and
>they have worked things out pretty well. But -- and this is a big
>one
>-- the founder is in his seventies. Now the model is working quite,
>as
>I said, even through troubles. They're even looking to expand a bit,
>but I don't think you can wholly discount the personality of the
>fellow who got things going. There seems to be a benevolent emeritus
>function at work. What happens when he's gone?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragón_Cooperative_Corporation

the model:

1 -- A Share In The Venture Commune
Can Only Be Acquired
By Contributions Of Labour,
and Not Property.

In other words
only by working is ownership earned,
not by contributing Land, Capital or even Money.
Only Labour.

It is this contributed labour
which represents the initial Investment capacity
of the Commune.

The Commune Issues its own currency,
based on the value
of the labour pledges it has.

It then invests this currency
into the private enterprises
which it intends to purchase or fund
these Enterprises thus become owned by the Commune
in the same way that Enterprises
which receive Venture Capital
become owned by a Venture Capital Fund

2 -- The Venture Commune's Return On Investment
From Its Enterprises
Is Derived From Rent
and Not Income

As condition of investment,
the Enterprise agrees
to not own its own property,
neither Land nor Capital,
but rather to rent Land and Capital
from the Commune.

The Commune,
unlike a Venture Capital Fund,
never takes a share
of the income of the Enterprise
nor of any of its workers.

The Commune finances
the acquisition of Land and Capital
by issuing Bonds,
and then Rents
the Land and Capital to its Enterprises,
or an Enterprise can sell
whatever Land and Capital it acquires
through other means
to the Commune,
and in turn Rent it.

In this way
Property is always owned Mutually
by all the members of the Commune,
however all workers
and the Enterprises
that employ them
retain the entire product of their labour.

3 -- The Venture Commune
Is Owned Equally
By All Its Members.

Each member can have one share,
and only one share.
Thus although each worker
is able to earn different prices
for their labour
from the Enterprises,
based on the demand for their labour,
each worker may never earn
any more than one share
in the ownership of the Commune itself,
and therefore
can never accumulate
a disproportionate share
of the proceeds of Property.

Ownership of Property
can therefore never be concentrated
in fewer and fewer hands
and used to exploit the worker
as in Capitalist corporations.

4 -- All Those Who Apply Their Labour
To the Property of the Commune
Must Be Eligible For Membership
In The Commune.

The Commune may not refuse membership
to any Labour employed
by any of its enterprises
that work with the Land and Capital
controlled by the commune.
In this way
Commune members
can not exploit outside wage earners,
and the labour needs of the Enterprise
will ensure
that each Commune continues
to grow and accept new members.

The Venture Communist Mode of Production

These four properties combine to establish
an alternative mode of production,

the Venture Communist Mode of Production.

With Property owned mutually by the workers
who apply their Labour to it.
Labour becomes the Dominant Input
to production.

As a result
the price of Property
is reduced to its costs
and Labour retains
the full value of its contribution
to production.

[Draft VII. Copyleft 2005, Idiosyntactix.
All Rights Detourned.]