"Instead of leaving those choices to parasite investors"

[cyu]

The Growth of Citizen Co-Ops Is a Positive Development As Corporations Fail Us in Every Way

Excerpts from http://www.alternet.org/story/144969/?page=entire

Worldwide, roughly 750,000 cooperatives serve 730 million members, according to the National Cooperative Business Association. Here in this country, some 72,000 co-op establishments operate, providing more than 2 million jobs and serving 120 million members--that's four in 10 Americans. These establishments exist in energy, childcare, food distribution, health care, insurance, agriculture, telecommunications and other industries. But co-op advocates want growth, and they say the time is now, as wealth concentration has reached dangerous levels

"A lot of cities are seeing that traditional economic- and job-development strategies have hit a dead end"

Through shared ownership and democratic control, co-ops distribute wealth, create jobs and keep control in the local community by allowing people to make the decisions that impact them, instead of leaving those choices to parasite investors who can sell a stock and walk away.

"Our firm belief is that cooperatives are the best business model for economic and social progress," said Adam Schwartz, vice president of NCBA. "Because of the structure--owned by workers--it's a fair model and treats people in a way that allows them to thrive while balancing the needs of their community."

McLeod visited Trentino, Italy, which has at least 545 co-ops serving the region. Here, McLeod learned that 90 percent of the towns in the province have a food co-op as their only grocery store, and credit unions comprise the majority of the financial industry.

Mondragon formed in 1956 and has since become a transnational-cooperative system that includes Spain's second-largest retail chain, with 2,400 stores, one of the country's largest banks, and medical and educational institutions.

"In contrast to this country, where small rural communities face the loss of industrial jobs, they're seeing growth," McLeod said. "It's night and day." Workers earn an average income nearly 40 percent higher than the rest of Europe, McLeod said, and the system survived Spain's economic recession in the 1980s without laying off members. Profits are pulled together in this integrated system and made available to help support new, or struggling, cooperatives.

McLeod's first day in Pittsburgh coincided with the United Steelworkers' announcement that it will create a worker-cooperative partnership with Mondragon.

in Cleveland, McLeod learned about the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, a 100 percent worker-owned cooperative established by the Greater University Circle Institute at the Cleveland Foundation... The foundation also launched Ohio Cooperative Solar, a solar and weatherization company, which will eventually produce between 50 and 100 jobs. Both businesses dedicate 10 percent of their pre-tax profit to a fund to build a broader co-op network.

"One of the strengths of the cooperative structure is that ownership of the company is broadly held; when 50 people own their business in their own neighborhood where they live, they're not going to send those jobs somewhere else."

The Detroit Community Grocery Store Coalition recently formed to create cooperative grocery stores within the city. This collaboration between 80 churches, consumers and workers will reinvest a portion of store profits into the creation of more grocery stores, and eventually meet Detroit's food needs. For Detroit, the development of co-ops is about survival.

"Cooperatives are a fairer way of going about providing goods and services in good times and tough economic times," Schwartz said, adding that they address the triple bottom line of profits, and the impact on the environment and local community. "With a cooperative, you can make money and serve your community. You can be proud of what you do."

[Atlanta]

Firstly, this article screams localism and anti consumerism both petit-bourgeois ideologies. The title talks about an alternative to parasitic investors in the since that we that we the workers have some alternative under capitalism. that alternative according to the article is to form co-op small businesses similar to farmer co-ops and compete on the capitalist market. These co-ops of course are not an alternative to revolution; the bourgeois still hold state power and the workers are still held to the mercy of market up turns and down turns. "With a cooperative, you can make money and serve your community. You can be proud of what you do." this seems to be the same sorta attitude the green party takes...that you can have kinder gentler community based capitalism.

[cyu]

that alternative according to the article is to form co-op small businesses similar to farmer co-ops and compete on the capitalist market. These co-ops of course are not an alternative to revolution... this seems to be the same sorta attitude the green party takes...that you can have kinder gentler community based capitalism.

Agreed. However, as these movements get off the ground, they can get "mainstream" / apolitical people to start wondering why have the old capitalist model at all - why not just abolish the whole thing?

There are two ways to employee control. One is to simply assume democratic control. The other way is to buy your way in by giving more economic power to capitalists. In the words of João Pedro Stedile (http://mstbrazil.org/stedile0799.html): "If the World Bank wants to help, it could provide resources for infrastructure--such as education, irrigation, health care projects, and credit for production--after the disappropriation process. Instead, the World Bank chose to put money into the large landowners' pockets."

[La Comédie Noire]

Agreed. However, as these movements get off the ground, they can get "mainstream" / apolitical people to start wondering why have the old capitalist model at all - why not just abolish the whole thing?

This. Like during the Great Depression people began sharing their homes and food with other people which led to overtly political acts like stopping people from getting evicted, a direct challenge to the state.

You can argue almost anything you do in this society is "Petit Bourgeois" because it is based on the private accumulation of wealth. Anything workers try to do whether it be labor unions or co ops is an attempt to improve their conditions under capitalism. But material conditions change, endowing apolitical acts with a political character. Think about the French Revolution, the Estates General had a long tradition of being convoked by kings with nothing of particular note occuring. That all changed in 1789 when the Third Estate created the General Assembly and demanded a constitution.

But anyway, Great article Cyu! Co Ops will probably proliferate as the economic situation gets worse.

[Tiktaalik]

Co-ops are a long way from worker's councils... but the idea behind co-ops and the spreading of those ideas to the mainstream is a positive development - the more folks are down with controlling their workplaces, the better.

[MarxSchmarx]

The article is too one-sided, and does not mention how coops, just like other enterprises, can fail. When they fail, they fail hard. One of the most spectacular cases was this grocery store in Chicago, USA:

http://www.hydepark.org/hpkccnews/coop.htm

They made some terrible decisions with their resources and failed to provide the community with an acceptable alternative to the corporate chains with massive purchasing power.

Many of the structural problems, like a shrinking middle class, pension benefits, and less flexible credit, are hurting cooperatives around the world. There are successful cooperatives just like there are successful capitalist business. Thus other replies to the OP are correct - we cannot put much faith in the transformative power of coops for now.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage coops where we can. I try to support coops or worker owned institutions in where I spend and manage my money, but these are like picking up a coke can in terms of their impact on the prevailing social order.

[cyu]

just like other enterprises, can fail. When they fail, they fail hard

All types of businesses fail or don't fail - it's not like you can give everyone a magic oracle so they never make mistakes again. Even then, studies show democratic companies are more productive than authoritarian ones: http://www.revleft.com/vb/studies-show-free-t125550/index.html


Many of the structural problems, like a shrinking middle class, pension benefits, and less flexible credit, are hurting cooperatives around the world

Well, I'd assume for people on revleft, the goal is not to find ways to work around any shrinking middle class, but rather to destroy class differences.

Lack of "flexible credit" is just a symptom of the capitalist disease. "Flexible credit" is just a system of accounting - if all the paper money, gold reserves, loans, back accounts, stocks, and bonds were wiped out tomorrow, does that really affect anybody's productive ability? All the machines are still there, all the raw materials are still there, all the people who can use that stuff are still there.

The fact that lots of those things fall idle in a capitalist recession, leading to scarcity and suffering, is merely a sign that capitalism is an economic system built on stupidity.

[MarxSchmarx]

just like other enterprises, can fail. When they fail, they fail hard
All types of businesses fail or don't fail - it's not like you can give everyone a magic oracle so they never make mistakes again.


Well that was my point. Coops are not an economic panacea or an "island of stability" in a sea of failed business models, and that coops face many of the same economic difficulties traditional businesses do, and thus to succeed they often have to adopt many of the same practices. Mondragon is actually a terrifying example of this reality:
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2383-the-myth-of-mondragon.aspx



Even then, studies show democratic companies are more productive than authoritarian ones: http://www.revleft.com/vb/studies-sh...550/index.html

Many of the structural problems, like a shrinking middle class, pension benefits, and less flexible credit, are hurting cooperatives around the world
...
Lack of "flexible credit" is just a symptom of the capitalist disease. "Flexible credit" is just a system of accounting - if all the paper money, gold reserves, loans, back accounts, stocks, and bonds were wiped out tomorrow, does that really affect anybody's productive ability? All the machines are still there, all the raw materials are still there, all the people who can use that stuff are still there.

The fact that lots of those things fall idle in a capitalist recession, leading to scarcity and suffering, is merely a sign that capitalism is an economic system built on stupidity.

Production without a buyer is meaningless.

The thing is, productivity isn't the sole measure of whether a given enterprise succeeds or fails. In fact, for most small scale enterprises, the local demand for the product or service has much more to do with it. It is largely the well-established firms, that have a fairly fixed demand, that can afford to focus on productivity. Whether the productivity gains in democratic cooperatives are enough for them to take advantage of a niche I suppose just depends too much on the product and the particular market that any broad appeals to their superior productivity is somewhat questionable.

[cyu]

Production without a buyer is meaningless.

Indeed if nobody wants what you're producing, then you shouldn't be producing it. On the other hand, if people want it but can't afford it because capitalists have excluded the poor from capital goods, so they aren't even allowed to produce anything, then that is a different story.

Excerpts from http://everything2.com/title/unlimited+wants+and+limited+resources

once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.

[MarxSchmarx]

Indeed if nobody wants what you're producing, then you shouldn't be producing it. On the other hand, if people want it but can't afford it because capitalists have excluded the poor from capital goods, so they aren't even allowed to produce anything, then that is a different story.

Excerpts from http://everything2.com/title/unlimited+wants+and+limited+resources


I haven't read the article, but production has to be motivated by demand. And demand is the desire PLUS the ability to purchase a product. In the case you mention, even if hardly anybody can afford it, as long as somebody CAN buy it and wants it, then it justifies producing it under capitalism.. Look at some sports cars for example.


once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.

Right, that was what I was getting at. But the question becomes what is considered necessary/desirable products and what are not. As long as we have markets, even under socialism, this will be decided by raw purchasing power.

Only by abandoning markets for democratic planning can production reflect what people really want.

[cyu]

as long as somebody CAN buy it and wants it, then it justifies producing it under capitalism.

Maybe you could have worded that better, since I assume we already agree. "As long as somebody CAN buy it and wants it, then pro-capitalists will claim that justifies producing it." However, just because pro-capitalists will attempt to use that as a justification, I wouldn't say it's actually justified, since a large gap between rich and poor means economic resources will be misallocated towards producing for the rich - leftists would of course argue that producing more palaces for the rich is unjustified while the poor are dying from scarcity.


As long as we have markets, even under socialism, this will be decided by raw purchasing power.

Yes, it would. However, if socialism meant everyone had relatively equal amounts of purchasing power, then that would mitigate most of capitalism's economic calculation problem.


Only by abandoning markets for democratic planning can production reflect what people really want.

Personally I wouldn't mind having a market economy so much as long as people had relatively equal amounts of spending power. However, that doesn't mean I think this type of market economy is the best of all possible worlds. Excerpt from equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/title/equal%20pay%20for%20unequal%20work):

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people's health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

[MarxSchmarx]

CYu, while we may agree on everything else, I wonder if this may betye issue at hand:

Personally I wouldn't mind having a market economy so much as long as people had relatively equal amounts of spending power. However, that doesn't mean I think this type of market economy is the best of all possible worlds.

Ultimately, I do not see how "equal amounts
of spending power" can beies. achieved under a market system. As long as production is driven by demand, unequal productive capacities emerg,e and out of these capacities in turn arise unequal consumption abiliit

[cyu]

I do not see how "equal amounts of spending power" can beies. achieved under a market system.


Thanks. A couple answers. Excerpt from Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/title/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money):

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal. But can that be achieved through non-violence?

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

Excerpt from equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/title/equal%20pay%20for%20unequal%20work):

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever (yes, people in more difficult jobs may get more "respect" than other jobs, but that's just social conditioning and not related to their salaries). They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work, but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.