Worker Cooperatives

[Drosophila]

Collectively-owned companies. Does this fit in with communism/socialism? Does the fact that I think it's a great idea make me a socialist/communist in some way?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Well... under a socialist mode of production all companies would be collectively owned so... in a way that is a leftist idea. I would recommend doing further reading to determine if you're really a socialist though.

[The Man]

If the 'companies' are self-managed and directed by the Workers in a democratic style, then yes, that fits in with Communism.

[Dunk]

Collectively-owned companies. Does this fit in with communism/socialism? Does my thinking it a great idea make me a socialist/communist in some way?

I don't have as an in-depth understanding as many here on this site do, but my own personal thinking on the matter is that cooperatives are certainly preferable in this capitalist wilderness, but cooperatives are not a socialist or communist oasis. While workers in a cooperative may equally own the means of production they work for, they still must compete against other firms, and a sort-of self and fellow exploitation takes place between the individual worker and his or her coworkers within the cooperative. There's also the question of whether workers in some cooperatives share equal control over the means of production they operate - for example, a bread company* out west comes to mind - workers equally own and split a majority of the profits (alarm buzzers, red-flags should be thrown up in your mind since I mentioned profit) of the company they work for, yet the man who started the company, I believe, still holds the power to hire and fire workers. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the typical degree to which cooperatives are democratically managed.

SO, I would say they are a more tolerable temporary alternative to the typical dictatorship-like business model, and if cooperatives are run very democratically, they may be "good practice". :)

*I think this co-op was in Michael Moore's flick, but I can't remember for certain

[Le Socialiste]

So long as the company in question is owned, operated, and democratically run by the workers, sure.

[Jose Gracchus]

Cooperatives competing via market relations, if that's what you mean, are not communist.

[Le Socialiste]

While workers in a cooperative may equally own the means of production they work for, they still must compete against other firms, and a sort-of self and fellow exploitation takes place between the individual worker and his or her coworkers within the cooperative.


That's true, too. While cooperatives may grant the workers inside them greater freedoms and rights, so long as they operate within a capitalistic system they will contine indulging in the same cycle of competition. They may be more desirable at the moment given they represent an alternative inside the current economic structure, but they still work as a capitalistic-oriented company.

[Apoi_Viitor]

If there was a capitalist economy where every firm was a cooperative, would it be socialist?

[Dunk]

If there was a capitalist economy where every firm was a cooperative, would it be socialist?

Sounds like "Market Socialism".

[MarxSchmarx]

Cooperatives competing via market relations, if that's what you mean, are not communist.

Well, suppose everyone had the same purchasing power. Then why not?

[Tablo]

If there was a capitalist economy where every firm was a cooperative, would it be socialist?
Sounds like Mutualism to me. I'm not the best read on it so I can't be sure. It would arguably be a Market Socialist economy, but some argue the market and socialism are incompatible. Definitely read into it if you get the chance.

[Jose Gracchus]

Personally, I don't think there's a real question in practice. Market relations serve class societies and lead to commodification. To the extent both are suppressed, market relations, I think, will subside. In principle, where moves have been made to this model, all the traditional negative qualities of capitalism have re-asserted themselves. In Yugoslavia, the enterprise managers rapidly accrued all manner of special authority, privilege, and distinction. Labor was commodified (how could it not be?) and unemployment existed - only ameliorated by exporting surplus labor as migrant labor to capitalist states.

I find it hard to imagine a market-relations cooperative-based society where labor is no commodified in a labor market and everyone has equivalent purchasing power and there is no workplace hierarchy in managerial roles or division of labor. If those qualities are allowed, very quickly some of the 'self-managing workers' will rapidly be forced to the bottom, the least desirable work roles, work empowerment, and compensation. The 'self-managing workers' who find themselves occupying even passingly managerial specialization will parley this competitive advantage in the labor market further and further, shopping from cooperative to cooperative for those willing to compensate them for their 'expertise'. They would organize, demand more freedom from social control, and perhaps look to loosen capital controls and even extract it - and voila, you're back to capitalism.

Zanthorus has dealt with how under Marx's critique of political economy in a cooperative the associated laborers remain their own capitalist, and 'self-exploit'. Upon further examination of historical "real socialist" economies and the particular cases of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation and Yugoslav "self-management", I believe in practice, especially over time, there would be a re-imposition of capitalist relations in this form of "market socialism" to the extent that it is at best a kind of radical reformist iteration of the capitalist mode of production.

[Drosophila]

Thanks a lot for all of the informative answers.


yet the man who started the company, I believe, still holds the power to hire and fire workers.

He/she doesn't benefit from firing a worker, unless the worker is actually causing a problem.

So this is my idea:

Some good-hearted rich guys start cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter is out maneuvered, and the corporations in question go out of business. Now, it's capitalism, but every firm is collectively managed.

[Dunk]

Thanks a lot for all of the informative answers.



He/she doesn't benefit from firing a worker, unless the worker is actually causing a problem.

So this is my idea:

Some good-hearted rich guys start cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter is out maneuvered, and the corporations in question go out of business. Now, it's capitalism, but every firm is collectively managed.

The production costs of huge domestic and multinational corporations are too low to compete with, and it would still be capitalism.

If you're trying to cook up some mostly non-violent way to "cut the balls off the capitalist", the most intriguing strategy I've ever heard from the social democrat crowd is the Meidner Plan. But I don't think capitalists would let such a plan come to fruition through the means of using the bourgeois state, as they didn't sit back and let it come to fruition before. I am also not convinced it would actually be feasible for the working class to "purchase" every means of production from the bourgeoisie - and am also unconvinced that once this great period of purchasing is complete, workers would collectively decide to stop producing for profit and start producing for need - because capitalists wouldn't just vanish once workers give them massive sums of money. I also disagree on principle that the working class should purchase what is already rightfully theirs.

The most feasible means to replace globalized capitalism with globalized communism is through revolution.