Worker Co-Ops

[Revolution starts with U]

What's the general view on worker co-ops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), specifically (tho not necessarily) the Mondragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) Corporation (http://www.mcc.es/ENG.aspx)?

Doomed attempt to reform the capitalist structure? Or acceptable way to revolutionize from within?

I ask for general knowledge, but also because I'm terrible with bosses (don't accept authority very easy, not afraid to tell you you're doing it wrong) so I've always done self-employment. I'm thinking of taking on a few "employees" and I think doing it in a cooperative way is the best way to go about it.

[Savage]

I think there have been several fairly good threads on this subject in the past that you can probably find through Google or by searching them on revleft, generally the conclusion is reached that they do not challenge the rule of Capital.

[graymouser]

Cooperatives won't get us to socialism. They still have to function in a capitalist economy, which means price competition from competitors that underpay their employees; they also have to purchase constant capital on the market and generally have to be able to expand. So the workers don't have any great shakes. It's an ok thing if you can make it work - better than having a boss, I guess - but it's no way forward.

[Zanthorus]

As Savage said, we've had a number of threads on this. I don't know about a general agreement on Savage's point, we've had a number of dissenters from that line, hence the large number of threads on the subject. In general, I think it's fairly clear that co-operatives do not eliminate capital/labour relations but merely re-organise them to make it more 'democratic' and 'non-hierarchical'. This tends to enthrall certain Anarchist types, but in one of the studies carried out on life working as a Mondragon employee ('The Myth of Mondragon') the researchers found that conditions were worse for Mondragon workers than other workers' in the region working for more 'traditional' firms because the ideology of the conflict between capital and labour being harmonised in the co-op lended itself to a dampening of struggle for on the workers' part. Where other workers would've joined a union and/or gone on strike, Mondragon workers took it up the arse for the 'common good'. I think you should remember that you can organise your busienss anyway you want but ultimately the only thing that's going to lead to the destruction of capital is the abolition of individual businesses altogether.

[fishontuesday]

I think the state should create coop style workplaces! Possibility at least? Better then traditional capitalist workplace?

[Savage]

I didn't mean to imply that the responses on the subject were unanimous, but rather that those dissenters were refuted every time.

[Revolution starts with U]

:laugh: Savage, I find your avatar incredibly ironic

Thx for the responses all

[Savage]

:laugh: Savage, I find your avatar incredibly ironic

My great sense of humor does more for class struggle than any party ever could

[hatzel]

See, I was just about to pipe up saying co-ops were a good thing, but now I know my dissent will be refuted...well, I'd best keep my mouth shut on that one :unsure:

[thriller]

I don't see co-ops as a way forward. It seems, at least in my community co-ops are supported by the ex-hippies turned yuppies who have given up on changing the system, and just feel better about themselves by going to a co-op. There are a few co-ops here that could barely even be called that. The workers do share in some of the profit the store makes, but the managers are quite authoritarian and the workers don't have much a say really. IMHO co-ops are just facades created by progressive liberals to "show" how capitalist business practices work when done right.

[hatzel]

The workers do share in some of the profit the store makes, but the managers are quite authoritarian and the workers don't have much a say really.

I'd question whether that's really a co-op, rather than just a...hmm...*tries to think of a good word*...worker- / consumer-floated company. I mean, seems more like it's just about giving workers shares in the business (for all intents and purposes), and if that's our criteria for a co-op, then...well, of course they're crap :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Either way, going forward I will have to take on employees in some fashion. I don't think I could ethically do that without it being in some kind of cooperative way.

[Sosa]

how about non-profit co-ops....is there such a thing?

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

This tends to enthrall certain Anarchist types, but in one of the studies carried out on life working as a Mondragon employee ('The Myth of Mondragon') the researchers found that conditions were worse for Mondragon workers than other workers' in the region working for more 'traditional' firms because the ideology of the conflict between capital and labour being harmonised in the co-op lended itself to a dampening of struggle for on the workers' part. Where other workers would've joined a union and/or gone on strike, Mondragon workers took it up the arse for the 'common good'.Huh? They put up with what from who? The government? The main "myth" Kasmir tried to disprove was that it was a happy fairy tail workplace with no managers and no hierarchy, and that the MCC is some sort of alternative to class struggle. She was completely right on these points. Workers are still alienated, it still has problems. But:

There is a lot of genuine worker control and profit sharing in the MCC. Wage differences between hard working janitors and hard working managers/engineers are much smaller than in any corporations. Workers/owners have some of the best job security in the world: the MCC has weathered recessions better than corporations ever do. The workers have consistently made decisions that don't just benefit themselves, but that are responsible and benefit the entire community. There are more women in management positions than in corporations, and gender issues are seriously addressed among the workers as they make decisions. I could make a long list of the economic successes of the MCC (I should disclaim that I stole these arguments from page 70 of After Capitalism, a reformist book).

Co-ops are an extraordinarily useful proof of concept when arguing with any half-way reasonable person of a mainstream political mindset. You can quash the first twenty arguments they have without having to appeal to Communist countries, which will usually devolve into "yes, but Stalin...!"

Didn't Marx call co-ops a beautiful spontaneous expression of worker something or other, though not useful in revolutionary terms? And didn't he also say that the embryo of the new society must grow within the old? Well, here's your cotyledon.

Co-ops will never overtake capitalist businesses by themselves, this has been shown consistently for centuries. This isn't because they're inefficient, it's because they have no motivation to expand. Investors do. If I build two factories, I'll double my profit. This is why capitalism is so devastating to the environment.

I doubt a bourgeois state can encourage co-op growth enough to do anything interesting, but Chavez is giving it a damn good try so we'll see soon enough.

[Zanthorus]

Huh? They put up with what from who? The government?

The usual shit (http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together) that workers put up with from their employers - wage cuts, layoffs and what have you.


(I should disclaim that I stole these arguments from page 70 of After Capitalism, a reformist book).

Well maybe instead of reading Schweikhart's rubbish you could've done your own research. You might have found such uncomfortable facts such as how Mondragon exploits it's (http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008) Polish employee's (http://libcom.org/news/go-slow-strike-fagormastercook-mondragon-capital-group-25012011). I don't have a source right now but I do recall reading that only full-time workers actually have proper control in Mondragon anyway, the corporation if I recall correctly hires a lot of part-time workers whose situation is the same as workers in any other industry. To be honest, I don't see a big difference between promoting Mondragon and promoting 'socially responsible' capitalist firms. Personally if I was making the rules around here I'd have all the Mondragon fanboys restricted for being apologists for capitalist exploitation.


Co-ops are an extraordinarily useful proof of concept when arguing with any half-way reasonable person of a mainstream political mindset.

This is a terrible argument, our politics are not some kind of popularity contest. Anyway, co-ops hardly 'prove' anything except for the fact that workers are just as capable of collectively managing capital as individual capitalists are.


Didn't Marx call co-ops a beautiful spontaneous expression of worker something or other, though not useful in revolutionary terms?

Marx supported the co-operative movement like he supported every movement of the working-class to organise and better their position. He did not accord the co-operative movement any special status with other organisations such as trade-unions, and even spent a good deal of his time arguing against those who privileged the co-operative movement at the expense of building a political movement of the class. He was also fairly consistent on the point that the only feasible way of overthrowing capitalism would be the organisation of production and the abolition of market relations.


Co-ops will never overtake capitalist businesses by themselves, this has been shown consistently for centuries.

Probably because they are capitalist businesses.


Chavez

Bourgeois governments trying to incorporate the movement of the class into the state is not new. The Weimar Republic tried it after the German revolution of 1919 with it's 'workers' councils', even in 1848 the French Second Republic set up a 'ministry of labour' with delegates from the trade guilds to debate economic matters and the re-organisation of French industry. Marx's response to the latter was to denounce it as nothing but an empty gesture which would mean nothing while bourgeois delegates remained at their posts elsewhere. The response of the KAPD to the former was somewhat similar. The fact that you call yourself a 'Councillist' yet are blinded by Chavez's rhetoric is quite frankly mystifying. Gorter, Ruhle and Pannekoek would be rolling in their collective graves.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

The usual shit (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together) that workers put up with from their employers - wage cuts, layoffs and what have you.If the thing is organized properly their employers are them.


exploits it's (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008) Polish employee's (http://libcom.org/news/go-slow-strike-fagormastercook-mondragon-capital-group-25012011).Like they say, they're still competing with companies that exploit everyone. I don't know the details of that situation, but I'd suspect it's a case in which the overall corporation decided to exploit a smaller co-op within it. Another problem with Mondragon's particular setup, one that is made up for by increased stability overall.


I don't have a source right now but I do recall reading that only full-time workers actually have proper control in Mondragon anyway, the corporation if I recall correctly hires a lot of part-time workers whose situation is the same as workers in any other industry.That's true, and a big problem with Mondragon.


This is a terrible argument, our politics are not some kind of popularity contest. Maybe yours aren't. I'm one of those bozos that wants to get rid of capitalism through something more akin to a general wildcat strike than a coup. A popularity contest is irrelevant until some other components are in place, but having the support of the people is kinda important, imho.


Anyway, co-ops hardly 'prove' anything except for the fact that workers are just as capable of collectively managing capital as individual capitalists are.Worthwhile by itself.


Probably because they are capitalist businesses.I disagree. The workers control the means of production. Sort of.


Bourgeois governments trying to incorporate the movement of the class into the state is not new. The Weimar Republic tried it after the German revolution of 1919 with it's 'workers' councils', even in 1848 the French Second Republic set up a 'ministry of labour' with delegates from the trade guilds to debate economic matters and the re-organisation of French industry. Marx's response to the latter was to denounce it as nothing but an empty gesture which would mean nothing while bourgeois delegates remained at their posts elsewhere.Thanks for the history.


The response of the KAPD to the former was somewhat similar. The fact that you call yourself a 'Councillist' yet are blinded by Chavez's rhetoric is quite frankly mystifying. Gorter, Ruhle and Pannekoek would be rolling in their collective graves. I said Chavez' approach probably wouldn't do anything interesting, much less anything revolutionary. He may ultimately be seen as a counter-revolutionary for bribing or distracting or whatever from class struggle. Or, he may help build a bit of that embryo of the new society. Or, more likely, he'll better the lives of the people of one country without having any large impact on history.

You're right that my name isn't very accurate, I should really get the mods to change it sometime. It wasn't my first choice.


He was also fairly consistent on the point that the only feasible way of overthrowing capitalism would be the organisation of production and the abolition of market relations.

Where can I read more about what he said about market relations? (please be more specific than "capital")