Worker Cooperatives - Documentary

[Drace]

Workers are taking factories from their bosses and running it themselves.
Interesting documentary called "The Take" on this. Focuses on Argentina.

A question I want to ask. Is this a working model of socialism that will lead the force against capitalism?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/

[Drace]

Similar movement in Venezuela?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/no-volveran-the-venezuelan-revolution-now/

[Jimmie Higgins]

Workers are taking factories from their bosses and running it themselves.
Interesting documentary called "The Take" on this. Focuses on Argentina.

A question I want to ask. Is this a working model of socialism that will lead the force against capitalism?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/It's a really interesting and inspiring movie. Is this a working model? Well I think it is an example of what workers can potentially do when they organize; how capitalism does not meet human needs (the factories are closed because of the financial crisis in Argentina, not because people no longer want or need the goods produced there); and an example of how regular workers can run things together without imposed bosses.

However, the factory occupations in this case are sort of reform-oriented (not to degrade the amazing things this movement has accomplished); they have set a legal precedent and are trying to work within the system. They were temporarily able to defeat the over repressive attempts by the state to stop their movement (cops trying to forcibly remove the workers). I don't think a working class revolution can happen without workers taking over production in workplaces, but this alone is not enough, imo workers also have to be doing this with a socialist/revolutionary consciousness so that they see the factory occupation not only as a way to continue working, but also as a step towards building a new society based on workers running production democratically.

In many revolutions, workers have taken over production - including in Russia where soviets were set up. But the soviets existed alongside of a parliamentary government after the fall of the tsar and did not generally believe that society could be run without a western-style parliamentary government. As the new government increasingly became seen as following many of the policies of the old regime, a more radical consciousness began to develop and were receptive to the arguments made by people like the bolsheviks who argued that society could be run through the soviets (and therefore the workers directly) rather than through a Parliament.

So while the modern factory occupation movement is very inspiring, it also can not gradually reform society until all factories are run by workers simply because the current ruling class is not likely to sit by while the source of their power (private ownership of the means of production and therefore all of production) is slowly won away from them. It would be like if the Southern US slavocracy just sat around and did nothing about runaways - they couldn't do that without also loosing all their power. If the factory occupation movement began to really challenge capitalism, then there would eventually be some kind of head-on confrontation which would either result in the total destruction of the occupation movement, or the end of capitalism as we know it and the founding of a new society based on worker-run production.

[RGacky3]

Awesome documentary, and it is a model, but its not the first time this has happened, workers democratic takeovers go way back, but all that I hope is that the movement spreads and is'nt slowly taken apart by the state along with the Capitalists, a successfull democraticly run factory taken over from the Capitalists by the workers is the LAST thing the ruling class wants in Argentina, I guarantee you, there are (and will be more) efforts to undermine these worker cooperatives.

The workers have to keep pushing, if your not swimming your drowning, but this is amazing and I applaud them.

[Green Dragon]

So while the modern factory occupation movement is very inspiring, it also can not gradually reform society until all factories are run by workers

And now you are attempting to explain away its future failure.


If the factory occupation movement began to really challenge capitalism, then there would eventually be some kind of head-on confrontation which would either result in the total destruction of the occupation movement, or the end of capitalism as we know it and the founding of a new society based on worker-run production.

The problem for the socialist, as it ALWAYS is, isn't simply worker-run versus capitalist-run factoroes. Its what is what is decided to be done by the worker-run industry. There is absolutely nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned factory.

[Ryke]

The problem for the socialist, as it ALWAYS is, isn't simply worker-run versus capitalist-run factoroes. Its what is what is decided to be done by the worker-run industry. There is absolutely nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned factory.

Except it's openly admitted by most of the Left that cooperatives alone can't do much to create revolutionary changes if left on their own since they're still constrained by a profit-based economy that puts them in a condition altogether similar to that of any other corporation, and which results in most of the same problems, albeit in a different, more democratic environment. Worker-run cooperatives would have to aim from the beginning to create as soon as possible a new economic system based on fulfilling needs rather than making profits, and even then, it's doubtful that they could do it solely through creating co-ops. And even to those who hold cooperatives to be the best basis for revolutionary change, creating cooperatives in a capitalist environment, working by capitalist rules and standards, does not constitute a real alternative on its own.

So basically, you're right about that, but you're not teaching us anything new, and your argument stops short of actually challenging anything we say.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is absolutely nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned factory.You're right, but the needs of these workers can not be ultimately met within capitalism.

You could also say there is nothing "unfeudalist" about about early bourgeois merchants or mill-owners trying to make a profit. But ultimately, the feudal order created conditions that prevented mills from expanding or being able to run properly and make profits. In order for capitalism and the profit system to establish itself it had to turn the peasantry into a wage-labor force and get rid of all the irrational laws of the monarchy and taxes and privileges of the aristocracy.

[RGacky3]

The problem for the socialist, as it ALWAYS is, isn't simply worker-run versus capitalist-run factoroes. Its what is what is decided to be done by the worker-run industry. There is absolutely nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned factory.

There is when the factory is still nominally owned by the Capitalist. Then its revolutionary.

[Drace]

However, the factory occupations in this case are sort of reform-oriented (not to degrade the amazing things this movement has accomplished); they have set a legal precedent and are trying to work within the system. They were temporarily able to defeat the over repressive attempts by the state to stop their movement (cops trying to forcibly remove the workers). I don't think a working class revolution can happen without workers taking over production in workplaces, but this alone is not enough, imo workers also have to be doing this with a socialist/revolutionary consciousness so that they see the factory occupation not only as a way to continue working, but also as a step towards building a new society based on workers running production democratically.No, but its a start. Things have to start small. You can't expect workers of the whole nation to precede a revolution without any guides, motivation, or any working models.

Its a growing movement against both the state and capitalism.
The one on Venezuela certainly shows the people working not just for reform but slowly fighting for "genuine socialism".

If this presents itself a great working model within the capitalist movement, it will encourage other revolts.

Your right, this is something the capitalist class completely opposes. That's why I find the importance of this movement -- Its causing a major and fundamental confrontation between the workers and the capitalist class! This is the step to a revolution.


In many revolutions, workers have taken over production - including in Russia where soviets were set up. But the soviets existed alongside of a parliamentary government after the fall of the tsar and did not generally believe that society could be run without a western-style parliamentary government. As the new government increasingly became seen as following many of the policies of the old regime, a more radical consciousness began to develop and were receptive to the arguments made by people like the bolsheviks who argued that society could be run through the soviets (and therefore the workers directly) rather than through a Parliament.My history on the Soviet Union is quite lacking but weren't the Bolsheviks who set up central planning and an all powerful state?


The problem for the socialist, as it ALWAYS is, isn't simply worker-run versus capitalist-run factoroes. Its what is what is decided to be done by the worker-run industry. There is absolutely nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned factory.
Venezuela has been setting up communes, to create a whole worker run town so its more than that.
But a worker owned factory is still a major advancement to capitalist ownership that is going to cause major opposition from the capitalist class. Its a revolutionary step.

With the support of Hugo Chavez, its something that's very likely.
The alternate of worker run factories also destroys the premise of "freedom of private property", which is nothing more than a hierarchical way of organization.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]No, but its a start. Things have to start small. You can't expect workers of the whole nation to precede a revolution without any guides, motivation, or any working models.

Back to the vanguard!! Its 1917 again!!!



Its a growing movement against both the state and capitalism.
The one on Venezuela certainly shows the people working not just for reform but slowly fighting for "genuine socialism".


ALL socialists believe in "genuine socalism."





With the support of Hugo Chavez, its something that's very likely.
The alternate of worker run factories also destroys the premise of "freedom of private property",


No. Because then the factoy is owned by those workers- not those other ones.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;1683262]You're right, but the needs of these workers can not be ultimately met within capitalism.


I would, of course, dissagree.


You could also say there is nothing "unfeudalist" about about early bourgeois merchants or mill-owners trying to make a profit. But ultimately, the feudal order created conditions that prevented mills from expanding or being able to run properly

And of course the question becomes does SOCIALISM itself create such conditions?

[Green Dragon]

Except it's openly admitted by most of the Left that cooperatives alone can't do much to create revolutionary changes if left on their own since they're still constrained by a profit-based economy that puts them in a condition altogether similar to that of any other corporation, and which results in most of the same problems, albeit in a different, more democratic environment. Worker-run cooperatives would have to aim from the beginning to create as soon as possible a new economic system based on fulfilling needs rather than making profits, and even then, it's doubtful that they could do it solely through creating co-ops. And even to those who hold cooperatives to be the best basis for revolutionary change, creating cooperatives in a capitalist environment, working by capitalist rules and standards, does not constitute a real alternative on its own.

So basically, you're right about that, but you're not teaching us anything new, and your argument stops short of actually challenging anything we say.


Since it is agreed that worker co-ops mean nothing in and of itself, my pointing out that support by socialists for such efforts mean nothing to bring about socialism, ought to be a sufficient challenge to to socialists regarding their dreams...

[RGacky3]

I would, of course, dissagree.


Yeah, but the workers disagree with you, and in this instance, their point of view counts.


ALL socialists believe in "genuine socalism."

Workers control the means of production, is it that? IF it is its geniune socialism, if it is'nt, then it is'nt.

[Green Dragon]

Workers control the means of production, is it that? IF it is its geniune socialism, if it is'nt, then it is'nt.

Nothing uncapitalist about the workers owning their own factory, and thus controlling the means of production. Socialist?

[RGacky3]

Yes there is ... when the Capitalist still calls it HIS factory.

But your right, democratic workplaces to exist in capitalist societies.