Evolution

[PoliticalNightmare]

To what extent can workers peacefully organise themselves into co-operatives and mutual banking systems for their economic betterment under the present day capitalist infrastructure (without revolution)? How does the situation differ between 1st World and 3rd World countries, i.e. is working class organisation more probable in 3rd World countries like India or in 1st world countries like Britain?

[Jalapeno Enema]

I've never lived in a developing nation, so I've got a one-sided view, but here's my take.

I'm going to refer to the Rochdale Principles, and break it down somewhat to address bit by bit.
The current International Co-operative Alliance version from 1995 states:

1. Voluntary and open membership
2. Democratic member control
3. Member economic participation
4. Autonomy and independence
5. Education, training, and information
6. Cooperation among cooperatives
7. Concern for community

1. Voluntary and open membership. I think it might be harder to convince the population at large in the developed world to join a co-operative. In a well-established industrial and economic power, people seem happy to chase money, and while most employees in a co-op can earn better, many people who are "skilled" labor are likely to resent making the same as others.

2. Democratic member control. I don't see this as an issue either way. If it's democratic organization, there's no waste at the top of the corporate ladder to mind not having all the power.

3. Member economic participation. Again I think this is an obstacle for the developed world. A population used to "this is mine, that is yours" mentality would have some serious attitude adjustment issues. Think about how especially during Regan and GHW Bush's terms CEOs were allowed to strip corporations and destroy the unions for a quick profit, and how it's affecting the U.S. economy now. The members would have to learn that giving a little up today to ensure a good working environment tomorrow isn't a bad deal.

4. Autonomy and independence. Developed nations' economic organisations are absurd.

Take a random example: All of these are Sarah Lee:

Ball Park Franks, Butter Krust, Bryan Foods, Colonial Bread, Douwe Egberts, Merrild, Earthgrains, Emeril, IronKids Bread, Heiner's Bakery, Hillshire Farm, Jimmy Dean, Kahn's, Rainbo Bread, Rudy's Farm, State Fair, Senseo, GoodKnight, Hit, Jet, Ridsect, Vapona, Catch, Pyrel, Fumitox, Chemotox, Dum Dum & Cruz+Verde, Brylcreem, Dusch Das, Endust, Eskinol, Kiwi, Master, Matey, Prodent, Radox, Sanex, Williams, Zendium, Zwitsal.

And NOW Sarah Lee has been sold to Grupo Bimbo (I always knew Sarah Lee was a Bimbo).

In this Corporate Jungle, how easy is it to be to remain independent?

5. Education et al. Really shouldn't be too hard, should it? Should it? I'm not stupid, but I recall an educational system that favors money to learning. Let me know if it's different now; I'm trying to figure a way to go back to school.

6. Cooperation among cooperatives. A novel idea; shouldn't pose a problem, unless "competition is a good thing" is stuck up everybody's ass.

7. Concern for community. Idk if this is feel-good fluff or not. It sounds cheezy (justice and liberty for all!), but perhaps it's intention is that co-ops should operate ethically and responsibly. Quit throwing nuclear waste in my birdbath sort of thing.

I think a co-operative is do-able in a developed, capitalist infrastructure, but I believe it's an uphill battle.

[red cat]

To what extent can workers peacefully organise themselves into co-operatives and mutual banking systems for their economic betterment under the present day capitalist infrastructure (without revolution)? How does the situation differ between 1st World and 3rd World countries, i.e. is working class organisation more probable in 3rd World countries like India or in 1st world countries like Britain?

What exists in India is not completely like the British proletariat. Indian workers often do not have the right to choose their employers or to bargain for higher wages in the process, which is a key component of a truly capitalist economy. Due to the semi-feudal semi-colonial economy, the legal workers organization can be little more than stooges of the ruling class. So the real workers organizations mostly cannot push for the intermediate gains that you mention; they directly go for seizure of the means of production.

[Thirsty Crow]

To what extent can workers peacefully organise themselves into co-operatives and mutual banking systems for their economic betterment under the present day capitalist infrastructure (without revolution)?
To the extent which suits the capitalist class the most.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Interesting. So I gather it that the anarchist concepts of direct action and worker's struggles are more applicable in the 1st world than the 3rd world from the content of the above posts? Presumably then, revolution must first occur in industrialised countries before it can spread to non-industrialised countries where the workers are in a weaker position and do not have the education, wealth or technology to be able to immediately support themselves and each other. Overall though, revolution is the ultimate aim but the immediate economic betterment of workers under the capitalist infrastructure is the here and now, then.