New restaurant becomes IWW closed shop

[Sosa]

Grand Rapids, MI - Bartertown Diner and Roc’s Cakes a raw, vegan/vegetarian restaurant opening in a couple weeks in downtown Grand Rapids has decided to go “wobbly.” The seven member team which constitutes the worker-run establishment have all decided to join the old and storied Industrial Workers of the World labor union.

“It just seemed like the perfect fit for us. After meeting with members of the IWW it was clear that we all want the same things and being that we really don’t want to be just another restaurant it seemed logical,” said Ryan Cappelletti cook at the new Diner.

Bartertown Diner and Roc’s Cakes, which will be located at 6 Jefferson St., joins a growing list of worker-owned IWW shops. The Red and Black Cafe in Portland, Oregon and Just Coffee in Madison, Wisconsin being two others.

“We are very happy that Bartertown and Roc’s Cakes has decided to go IWW and believe it can only help in our larger campaign to raise the standard of living and benefits for all food and beverage workers in Grand Rapids,” said Shannon Williams, Treasurer of the local IWW branch.

The Grand Rapids Branch of the Industrial Workers of the World has been involved in food service organizing for many years. From the IWW Starbucks Workers Union to the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union.

The Industrial Workers of the World is a rank-and-file labor union open to all workers.

http://grsbuxunion.blogspot.com/2011/05/local-worker-owned-restaurant-joins.html

[chegitz guevara]

That's nice, but it hardly constitutes a victory.

[Sosa]

That's nice, but it hardly constitutes a victory.

How is a worker-owned establishment not a victory?

[PhoenixAsh]

It is vegan/vegitarian...that about sums it up :-D:-P

But seriously...I think this is a great development. I hope it becomes a great succes and in that will serve as yet another example of the viability of the concepts!

Congrats!

[RedSonRising]

That's pretty cool. Hopefully the people that come in to eat can get exposed to the workplace model and ideology in some way without being alienated or feel threatened from it. It's vegan/vegetarian to begin with, so that shouldn't be a huge problem.

The more worker-run businesses there are, the better.

[Devrim]

It looks like a marketing ploy by a group of small businessmen to me.

Devrim

[Sosa]

It looks like a marketing ploy by a group of small businessmen to me.

Devrim

No it's not, I know them personally, some are anacho-communists

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I've been asking this question for years and have never received a reply:

What is the difference between three petty-bourgeois brothers opening their own small business and three sisters opening a "worker-owned" business?

[Sosa]

I've been asking this question for years and have never received a reply:

What is the difference between three petty-bourgeois brothers opening their own small business and three sisters opening a "worker-owned" business?

worker-owned would imply that there is no boss, unlike the other option. The workers manage themselves

[black magick hustla]

self-management is counterrevolutionary

lol ok, in all seriousness if people are able to run their own small buisnesses good for them, better than working for a living. i dont think an "anarcho communist" buisness is different than any other buisness tho. although one of my lifeplans is to have a fuckin ultraleft drinking hole and only sell two types of dirt cheap beer and soup. better than stupid vegan coffee shops anyway the working class eats meat and drinks beer

[bcbm]

The more worker-run businesses there are, the better.

capitalism trembles at the thought

[black magick hustla]

ahahahahahaahah grand rapids all the stupid sxe kids and assorted scene smegma congregate there no wonder why this arose

[black magick hustla]

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/27/32-veganvegetarianism/

[Devrim]

No it's not, I know them personally, some are anacho-communists

Contrary to popular belief class is not determined by ideology, or even who you know personally, but by you relationship to the means of production. These people are small business owners.

NHIA asks a pertinent question:


What is the difference between three petty-bourgeois brothers opening their own small business and three sisters opening a "worker-owned" business?

Would the small shop around the corner from my house which is run by two brothers miraculously change into a 'worker owned business if they suddenly became communists?

Call me cynical if you like, but I think it is a pretty smart marketing ploy. They have the IWW doing free advertising for them at exactly their chosen market. It is pretty smart in my opinion.

Devrim

[Sosa]

Contrary to popular belief class is not determined by ideology, or even who you know personally, but by you relationship to the means of production. These people are small business owners.

NHIA asks a pertinent question:



Would the small shop around the corner from my house which is run by two brothers miraculously change into a 'worker owned business if they suddenly became communists?

Call me cynical if you like, but I think it is a pretty smart marketing ploy. They have the IWW doing free advertising for them at exactly their chosen market. It is pretty smart in my opinion.

Devrim

That would be the worst marketing ploy considering this is mainly a conservative republican town and many are hoping for it to fail. This establishment is only possible because of the fundraising they've been doing for this. No one works under these "owners", everyone who works there is automatically an owner, no one gets to exploit the other person. The workers own the means of production, there is no "boss"

[Devrim]

This establishment is only possible because of the fundraising they've been doing for this.

Superb, they have been raising money from others to set up their own business. Most people end up in hock to the bank. They really are smart.


No one works under these "owners", everyone who works there is automatically an owner, no one gets to exploit the other person.

Nobody works under the two brothers who run the shop across the road from my house. Are they therefore not petit-bourgeoise?

Devrim

[Sosa]

Superb, they have been raising money from others to set up their own business. Most people end up in hock to the bank. They really are smart.



Nobody works under the two brothers who run the shop across the road from my house. Are they therefore not petit-bourgeoise?

Devrim

So you don't believe in workers owning the means of production?

[black magick hustla]

So you don't believe in workers owning the means of production?

there is a different between the self management of small buisnesses and the abolition of buisnesses themseves

[Devrim]

So you don't believe in workers owning the means of production?

No, I am a communist. I don't believe in the ownership of private property at all.

Devrim

[Sosa]

communism is the common ownership of the means of production, thats not at all private property

[bcbm]

a self-managed small business is still a business, it exists within capital and offers no challenge to it. bosses are not defeated by becoming our own bosses

[PhoenixAsh]

as much as I would like to agree that this construction is the same as any private company there are a few side notes as to why I do not:

1.
In an economy oriented towards ownership its completely impossible to run a restaurant purely on communist principles and by communist economics...simply because the economy you run it in does not work that way.

2.
The examples abundant in this thread....the main difference is that if you start working at this restaurant you become part of the team that runs it...sharing in the responsibility of running it and equally benefitting from it. This is probably not the case with the two brothers running their own shop in which case additional staff would be just that...staff.

(now...this said...I do not know the specifics of this case in point...but I think its fair to assume this)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

1. In an economy oriented towards ownership its completely impossible to run a restaurant purely on communist principles and by communist economics...simply because the economy you run it in does not work that way.Which is exactly the point. There's no solution within capitalism. That's why it must be abolished.


2. The examples abundant in this thread....the main difference is that if you start working at this restaurant you become part of the team that runs it...sharing in the responsibility of running it and equally benefitting from it. This is probably not the case with the two brothers running their own shop in which case additional staff would be just that...staff.So as long as they don't hire anyone else they are a worker-owned business and that somehow represents some kind of advance? I guess especially so if they claim leftist political positions and join the right organizations, right?


Call me cynical if you like, but I think it is a pretty smart marketing ploy. They have the IWW doing free advertising for them at exactly their chosen market. It is pretty smart in my opinion.I remember when I heard that the Vox Pop coffee shop in Brooklyn was trying to recruit IWW members to work there because all the IWW folks they had left. Being a "responsible"/"democratic"/whatever business, they liked the image and customer base being an IWW shop gave them and didn't want to loose that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Which is exactly the point. There's no solution within capitalism. That's why it must be abolished.

I agree...but within its current structure any initiative which disproves the modus operandi and provides for alternatives is a step in the right direction.



So as long as they don't hire anyone else they are a worker-owned business and that somehow represents some kind of advance? I guess especially so if they claim leftist political positions and join the right organizations, right?

The basic difference is that the ownership relies on family ties and is codified on name. If the legal construct within the company allows each additional staff to be hired as equal sharing and deciding partner this is an advance against the current economic model.

Maybe not on the level we want to see...its not the solution. But it does go against the philosophy of capitalis which relies on profit maximalisation at the expense of labour compensation and in going against that it shows alternatives.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I agree...but within its current structure any initiative which disproves the modus operandi and provides for alternatives is a step in the right direction.

Or a step sideways.. or backward.

Look, if some people can sleep easier if they call their business a worker-owned operation that's fantastic for them. But it doesn't represent any advance against capital or toward a human community, and to pretend it does promotes the lie that there's an alternative within this wretched system.


The basic difference is that the ownership relies on family ties and is codified on name. If the legal construct within the company allows each additional staff to be hired as equal sharing and deciding partner this is an advance against the current economic model.

So it's because they're related? Or because they didn't call their business worker-owned in articles of incorporation? Or because they don't promise that anyone they hire will also become part owner? And if they did all of those things, it would represent an advance against capital how exactly?


Maybe not on the level we want to see...its not the solution. But it does go against the philosophy of capitalis which relies on profit maximalisation at the expense of labour compensation and in going against that it shows alternatives.

Alternative ways to make money maybe. Not an alternative to capitalism... anymore than living in the woods or digging for food in the trash.

[black magick hustla]

there is no philosophy of capitalism, capitalism is a socioeconomic system.

i dont disagree that sometimes spaces like this are useful if they are friendly for discussion and other sorts of events but it is still a buisness, and the niche here is a bunch of grand rapids vegan anarcho scenesters. i dont think this space is particularly useful anyway because it clearly appeals to certain millieu and will contribute to the subculturalization of our thought. what is happening here is that some kids had as a dream to set up a rabbit food shithole, and they found a good marketing niche to do so.

[PhoenixAsh]

Or a step sideways.. or backward.

Look, if some people can sleep easier if they call their business a worker-owned operation that's fantastic for them. But it doesn't represent any advance against capital or toward a human community, and to pretend it does promotes the lie that there's an alternative within this wretched system.

quite true. However being worker owned or not requires a legal construct and therein lies the difference. It automatically means that additional staff becomes part of the cooperation as equal sharing and benefitting partner....it goes a little further than sleeping better and calling it something its only so because you decide it.



So it's because they're related? Or because they didn't call their business worker-owned in articles of incorporation? Or because they don't promise that anyone they hire will also become part owner? And if they did all of those things,Its because they codified it as being owned by them in name...any additional staff becomming same level decider and beneficiary would be because they decided to alter the statutes....not because the statutes require them to do so.


it would represent an advance against capital how exactly?Because it shows a viable alternative of the way to run economic models as opposed to the hierarchical capitalist structure. Eventhough it may be
within the system and therefore not fully as we would like to see it it would break the dominance and monopoly of the socio economic model. It actually provides tangible evidence capitalist models of economy are not the only working models....and actually deconstructs the idea that its necessary to exploit labour to run a healthy bussiness.

The idea of capitalism is to maximalise profit by under appreciating the value of labor and extract the surplus value for the gain of the induvidual. A succesful bussiness run by the workers and equally shared in the responsibilities and benefits would counter argue the need for such a model.

And even though it runs in a capitalist system based on profit...it actually does show the truth behind out economic models and an alternative to the perpetuation of the current system.

I prefer a revolution. But one of the main hurdles we face is the lack of counter proof that our system actually works and works better.



Alternative ways to make money maybe. Not an alternative to capitalism... anymore than living in the woods or digging for food in the trash.Seeing as the debate within the radical left is still out on money and thereby making profit I think this statement is philosophically true but realistically it is not necessarilly the case. Even if you consider the transition phase (which I personally do not think necessary) this would be an example of how economies could function in the DOTR.



there is no philosophy of capitalism, capitalism is a socioeconomic system.

Yes...however philosophical reasoning is used to warrant and legitimise it.



i dont disagree that sometimes spaces like this are useful if they are friendly for discussion and other sorts of events but it is still a buisness, and the niche here is a bunch of grand rapids vegan anarcho scenesters. i dont think this space is particularly useful anyway because it clearly appeals to certain millieu and will contribute to the subculturalization of our thought. what is happening here is that some kids had as a dream to set up a rabbit food shithole, and they found a good marketing niche to do so.Mwah...I do not necessarilly disagree here, but I do think its a bit of a dim (negative) view to take. I'd like to see diversification after a revolution. I do not mind establishments who cater to specific tastes or scenes if you will. I do not think it necessarilly goes against the idea of communism or anarchism.

However...this may very well be a bussiness ploy. I agree. One that I think is useful and I hope succeeds given the current monopoly of exploitation.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

a self-managed small business is still a business, it exists within capital and offers no challenge to it. bosses are not defeated by becoming our own bosses
Right. Bosses are only defeated when the Glorious Party becomes our bosses.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Its because they codified it as being owned by them in name...any additional staff becomming same level decider and beneficiary would be because they decided to alter the statutes....not because the statutes require them to do so.

So small business is good, as long as everyone who works in it is a petty-bourgeois owner?


I prefer a revolution.

I don't think it's really a question of preference, but of necessity. The working class won't be "converted" or "convinced" to "choose revolution" (especially by "alternatives" like "radical" small businesses). But I've already made many posts on this question here.


But one of the main hurdles we face is the lack of counter proof that our system actually works and works better.

I don't know that we are an "our." If you think small businesses or self-employment are a model for a new society, we have little in common.

[Delenda Carthago]

I prefer a revolution.
Revolution, table 4, coming...

[The Douche]

Right. Bosses are only defeated when the Glorious Party becomes our bosses.

Wat?

[PhoenixAsh]

Revolution, table 4, coming...

...with a side order of salad and hold the authoritarianism, I am not partial to that. pls. :laugh:;)

[Delenda Carthago]

...with a side order of salad and hold the authoritarianism, I am not partial to that. pls. :laugh:;)
You want a coke with that? Or there is no Coca Cola in your revolution?

[PhoenixAsh]

So small business is good, as long as everyone who works in it is a petty-bourgeois owner?


No. Petit burgeoisie means the owner works along side the employee and does not own a controlling share in the labour. He/she is still the owner in name.

If all employees own the bussiness and share in it equally there is no owner in name except the collective.

This may seem judicial nit-picking....but its really a completely different legal status.

In macro economics the bussiness is still a sole and seperate bussiness in the capitalist sense. In micro economics however the way the bussiness operates differs completely from the capitalist doctrine and pretty much outside its economic theory.

...consider this...IF the objective of the restaurant is a NOT for profit enterprise....it immmediately seazes to be capitalist enterprise. Now...some here would call that DOTR transition....at leas if they are honest to what they are arguing in some threads.





I don't think it's really a question of preference, but of necessity. The working class won't be "converted" or "convinced" to "choose revolution" (especially by "alternatives" like "radical" small businesses). But I've already made many posts on this question here.


Semantics but I agree.

In the mean time however...such initiatives are the closest thing workers (seeing as to your next paragraph) have. You can dismiss such initiatives out of hand by saying its still capitalism (which it is not necessarilly) or you can see them as a new way to distribute wealth equally counter opposed to a system which does not do so nor sees this as an option.

But personally I'd like to see as much companies and bussinesses owned and controlled by the workers. From there its a small step towards a real and complete revolution....I do not see the problem or the necessity to agitate or dismis these initiatives before they turn out to be dishonest.

Following the logic any advance from the current situation could be dimissed as irrelevant or disingenious because its not in accordance with a complete revolution...things like welfare for example; or medicair/aid or whatever the situation is.

Now...you agree that if a worker controlls, contributes and benefits from a company equally as every other worker in that company this is a much better situation than the worker actually getting paid less than the work he or she puts in the company for the profit of the owner or owners of that company, right?



I don't know that we are an "our." If you think small businesses or self-employment are a model for a new society, we have little in common.

I do not think its a model. I think its exactly the DOTR as many here argue. Now...given my tendency I do not believe in a DOTR as a necessity. BUT I do see an advantage to the current situation for workers and as such I like this initiative....though it may not be revolutionary enough.

[PhoenixAsh]

You want a coke with that? Or there is no Coca Cola in your revolution?

Only if its without sugar and cafeine....an no ice! THey always scam you on the ice! ;):lol:


edit: and a straw. I'd like a pink one if possible.
edit: and a slice of lemon.

[black magick hustla]

there is a restaurant/pub in chicago called revolution it has good beer except its expensive as fuck and the worse people go there

[chegitz guevara]

How is a worker-owned establishment not a victory?

Seven people starting a business isn't a victory. Maybe if they seized, or otherwise wrested control of the restaurant, then I would concede it's a victory. All I see is seven members of the petty-bourgeoisie calling themselves workers and joining a union.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A model for a post-revolutionary society in New York?

http://www.pariscommune.net/

[PhoenixAsh]

there is a restaurant/pub in chicago called revolution it has good beer except its expensive as fuck and the worse people go there

Are the workers controlling it?



A model for a post-revolutionary society in New York? http://www.pariscommune.net/ (http://www.pariscommune.net/)

Are the workers controlling it?


***

Let me ask you two this....

would you rather work in a company or bussiness that you controll and share in in equal parts?
or
would you rather work for a bussiness owned by somebody who in return pays you a wage and scims of your surplus value for his or her own benefit?

[Sosa]

Seven people starting a business isn't a victory. Maybe if they seized, or otherwise wrested control of the restaurant, then I would concede it's a victory. All I see is seven members of the petty-bourgeoisie calling themselves workers and joining a union.

"see"? no, you assume. I personally know many of these people and they are all workers. You can continue to make assumptions or you can actually contact them and get their side of the story if you wish.

[bricolage]

http://www.pariscommune.net/
oh dear god

[Sosa]

I wonder, If me and my fellow workers were to rise up and take control of the means of production at our workplace, would we become petty bourgeoisie?

[black magick hustla]

A model for a post-revolutionary society in New York?

http://www.pariscommune.net/
fuck i hope that place gets its shit tagged out of it

[syndicat]

the IWW is supposed to be a revolutionary union. i've never understood this fixation with organizing marginal businesses and nonprofits and whatnot. how does this help build a worker force, how does it change the balance of power between capital and labor? this seems like an example of Ameican anarchist marginality.

that said, there is nothing wrong with people forming a worker cooperatives. Worker cooperatives are a way to create jobs for you and others where you're not subject to a boss. They display the practicality of workers themselves controlling the work. Also, there are many services that are desireable, from our point of view, and it would preferable for them to be organized as worker coops rather than capitalist businesses or bureaucratic nonprofits.

but this is different than building a social force to challenge capital...which is what a radical unionist movement should be about.

[The Douche]

I wonder, If me and my fellow workers were to rise up and take control of the means of production at our workplace, would we become petty bourgeoisie?

Sieze the means of production vs. start a business. Surely you can tell the difference?

Nobody here thinks the IWW opening co-ops is bad, just that its not revolutionary, and is inherently liberal.


While the IWW is comprised of genuine revolutionaries and has revolutionary politics, its actions are almost always liberal and reformist in nature. Hell, they even settled a no strike contract at least once that I can remember.

[Sosa]

Sieze the means of production vs. start a business. Surely you can tell the difference?

Nobody here thinks the IWW opening co-ops is bad, just that its not revolutionary, and is inherently liberal.


While the IWW is comprised of genuine revolutionaries and has revolutionary politics, its actions are almost always liberal and reformist in nature. Hell, they even settled a no strike contract at least once that I can remember.

At the end of the day its the workers running and controlling the means of production. Does it matter what preceded it? the end result is still exactly the same.

IWW didn't open a co-op, they reached out to these workers after they were part of a May Day event and the workers decided to be a part of the union. This was something initiatiated by the local chapter.

[The Douche]

This is not "the workers running the means of production", this is a group of small business owners who are in the IWW.

[syndicat]

At the end of the day its the workers running and controlling the means of production. Does it matter what preceded it? the end result is still exactly the same.



the aim of revolutionary syndicalism isn't just workers running particular workplaces. it is self-managed socialism which includes the workers running production.

besides, you're ignoring the big picture. this tiny little entity operates in a capitalist society & economy. it has nil effect on that. "seizing the means of production" where this refers to a worker revolution, means ALL of the means of production.

and coming up with the cash to set up a coop isn't "seizing the means of production." Seizing the means of production means taking it away from the capitalist owners and managers.

[Sosa]

the aim of revolutionary syndicalism isn't just workers running particular workplaces. it is self-managed socialism which includes the workers running production.

besides, you're ignoring the big picture. this tiny little entity operates in a capitalist society & economy. it has nil effect on that. "seizing the means of production" where this refers to a worker revolution, means ALL of the means of production.

and coming up with the cash to set up a coop isn't "seizing the means of production." Seizing the means of production means taking it away from the capitalist owners and managers.

Never said they were "seizing" anything. They're controlling it, which is better than the alternative, i.e. being exploited by whatever capitalist business would've inhabited the building. Instead of allowing another capitalist shop popping up, a number of workers got together and decided to provide an alternative. Of course no one is saying that this is going to start a revolution, but considering that this is happening in a conservative right-wing city, this is a pretty big deal here, and proving that this alternative is better than all the other restaurants in the city will speak for itself in the face of many who are wanting to shut it down and hoping for its failure.

[PhoenixAsh]

the aim of revolutionary syndicalism isn't just workers running particular workplaces. it is self-managed socialism which includes the workers running production.

besides, you're ignoring the big picture. this tiny little entity operates in a capitalist society & economy. it has nil effect on that. "seizing the means of production" where this refers to a worker revolution, means ALL of the means of production.

and coming up with the cash to set up a coop isn't "seizing the means of production." Seizing the means of production means taking it away from the capitalist owners and managers.

All true...

though...it seems to me that hijacking market space for alternatives to the normal modus operandi is taking away opportunity for capitalist owners. And running it according to workers contro principles seems to take away from true private ownership and managers.

None of this runs counter to the big picture or the eventual goal. Victory, I agree, is not the right word by far. But I seriously like the initiative...

[syndicat]

Never said they were "seizing" anything. They're controlling it, which is better than the alternative, i.e. being exploited by whatever capitalist business would've inhabited the building. Instead of allowing another capitalist shop popping up, a number of workers got together and decided to provide an alternative. Of course no one is saying that this is going to start a revolution, but considering that this is happening in a conservative right-wing city, this is a pretty big deal here, and proving that this alternative is better than all the other restaurants in the city will speak for itself in the face of many who are wanting to shut it down and hoping for its failure.

self-management of a workplace, controlling your own work, is a positive thing. promoting self-management is promoting a positive value.

it's just that this is not the same thing as developing a more militant, anti-system labor movement. and that's what the IWW should be about.

[Sosa]

so would the community be better off with or without these types of establishments?

[PhoenixAsh]

self-management of a workplace, controlling your own work, is a positive thing. promoting self-management is promoting a positive value.

it's just that this is not the same thing as developing a more militant, anti-system labor movement. and that's what the IWW should be about.


One does not necessarilly have to exclude the other.

[The Douche]

Instead of allowing another capitalist shop popping up, a number of workers got together and decided to provide an alternative.

This is a capitalist shop, it just happens to be worker owned/operated. And those involve happen to be communists, and they have attached it to a communist organization.

[Sosa]

This is a capitalist shop, it just happens to be worker owned/operated. And those involve happen to be communists, and they have attached it to a communist organization.

It has to operate within a capitalist framework but I wouldn't call it a capitalist establishment.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is a capitalist shop, it just happens to be worker owned/operated. And those involve happen to be communists, and they have attached it to a communist organization.

I have no idea if they intend to work it for profit. If not...then its not capitalist. Either way it does not rely on extracting surplus value and the legal stature of the organisation makes any worker equal in control and benefit.

[fishontuesday]

I really love hearing about things like this. I say it's a win for the working class and hopefully spreads dissent towards typical capitalist workplace. I want to know more about how these co-op establishments are run. There's no boss, but surely theres a manager of sorts. And if theres not a manager at this particular place it's no huge deal because there's only 7 workers but surely larger scale co-operatives have a manager figure. I know it may be hard to tell me much since theres few co-operatives but theres enough to give me the very basics i'm sure.

[Sosa]

I really love hearing about things like this. I say it's a win for the working class and hopefully spreads dissent towards typical capitalist workplace. I want to know more about how these co-op establishments are run. There's no boss, but surely theres a manager of sorts. And if theres not a manager at this particular place it's no huge deal because there's only 7 workers but surely larger scale co-operatives have a manager figure. I know it may be hard to tell me much since theres few co-operatives but theres enough to give me the very basics i'm sure.

If there would have to be a "manager" I would imagine that it would resemble something like a recallable delegate where they would appoint a revolving candidates and who could be recalled if the workers don't agree with the delegates direction. With such a small establishment though, I doubt there is a need for something like that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Tomorrow I'm going to stop over at the store a block over where a husband and wife do shoe repair to thank them for 40 years of providing an alternative to capitalism.

[28350]

A model for a post-revolutionary society in New York?

http://www.pariscommune.net/

The food there is not bad

[PhoenixAsh]

Tomorrow I'm going to stop over at the store a block over where a husband and wife do shoe repair to thank them for 40 years of providing an alternative to capitalism.


you are dodging the questions...



Now...you agree that if a worker controlls, contributes and benefits from a company equally as every other worker in that company this is a much better situation than the worker actually getting paid less than the work he or she puts in the company for the profit of the owner or owners of that company, right?


and




would you rather work in a company or bussiness that you controll and share in in equal parts?
or
would you rather work for a bussiness owned by somebody who in return pays you a wage and scims of your surplus value for his or her own benefit?


So...lets skip the theatrics and unrelated examples and just answer the questions. __________________

[Devrim]

I personally know many of these people and they are all workers.

This displays the same understanding of class as when former UK Prime Minister Thatcher declared that " I work. I am working class". The difference is that she was making a propaganda point whereas you just seem confused.

Economic class is not dictated by whether you labour or not. It is dictated by your relationship to the means of production, and in this case the relationship of these people to the means of production is that of owners of the business.

Let's take an example from the agricultural sector. The big landowner who employs a manager and workers on his farm and does nothing but sits back and collects the profits is obviously a capitalist.

Equally so the landless labourer who works on somebody else's farm for a wage is obviously a proletarian.

Where is appears to get difficult for some people is when we come to the small landowner who works his land collectively along with his family and employs no labour. What class does he belong to? What is the determining factor in his relationship to the means of production? It is in fact ownership. He is what is usually refereed to in communist terms as a member of the petit-bourgeoise.

Where it seems to be really difficult for some is that this is still the case if the peasant lives in Bangladesh, and the agricultural labourer lives in Germany. In this case the peasant almost certainly works harder and has a lower standard of living that the labourer. This though is not what determines their respective class. That is determined by their relationships to the means of production.

To go back to the small shop across the road from my house, which is open from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. each day, the brothers who run it must work about 70 hours a week. This is more than I do and more than most workers in this country. This, however, does not make them workers.

I work for a boss. I am paid a wage. My basic economic interest is completely different from the two brother who own the shop, or the peasant farmer in Bangladesh, or the IWW small businessmen. My basic interest is in working less hours for money money. My boss' basic interest is exactly the opposite. Her interest is in me working more hours for less money. This opposition is the motor of class struggle. It is at the basis of what the IWW preamble refers to when it says "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common". Here is the basic class difference. I don't have a direct economic stake in the business and its profitability.

This is not to say that all of the petit bourgeoisie are bad people, that they can't be revolutionaries as individuals, or even that large sectors of that class, particularly the small peasantry, can't be won over to revolution. It does mean though that restaurant owners are not members of the working class whether or not they call it a workers-owned business.

I am sorry if this seems a bit patronizing, but although it is basic it is really important.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It has to operate within a capitalist framework but I wouldn't call it a capitalist establishment.

What would you call it then? If we can't have socialism in one country, then we certainly can't have it in one restaurant.

Devrim

[NewSocialist]

Tomorrow I'm going to stop over at the store a block over where a husband and wife do shoe repair to thank them for 40 years of providing an alternative to capitalism.

What the fuck is your problem?

Do you even understand what exploitation is? Capitalists hire labor. They proceed to pay their laborers a wage and keep the surplus value created by those laborers for themselves. Labor-managed firms don't have this problem, since laborers democratically appropriate the surplus for themselves. The moral strength behind Marxism is an opposition to capitalist exploitation. Abolishing market relations was (and is) a goal most communists and socialists also support, but it's not the same thing.

Worker self-management, even within a capitalist market context, is a step forward. Workers in such enterprises don't have to worry about being fired at the whims of a capitalist, nor are they robbed of the full value of their labor by said parasitic capitalist. As another poster said, it also provides people with empirical proof of the viability of workers controlling their workplaces in a non-hierarchical manner.

For all your snide remarks, you're not really offering any serious alternative. What should a future communist world look like according to you? I realize that the IWW originated to unite workers across all industries and fight to eventually seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie. However, the IWW has also supported the "Wobbly Shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobbly_Shop#Wobbly_Shop)" alternative to capitalist firms for quite a while now --the Wobbly Shop is essentially just their name for workplace democracy.

[The Douche]

So, you guys who think co-ops are the future of revolution...explain how you came to that conclusion.

The fact is, if you work in a co-op you own the means of production, you're not hired by the boss, you are the boss, you and everybody who works there jointly own the means of production, and because they still work there it makes them petite-bourgeoise. My boss also works at the shop I work at, and I don't mean he is a supervisor, he does the same work the rest of us do (it is a tattoo shop), that doesn't mean he is a worker, he still owns the shop. Just as these IWW members own the restaurant, and also work at it, the textbook definition of petite-bourgeoise.

None of us are saying "stop starting co-ops", or "co-ops are bad", we're saying that co-ops are not inherently revolutionary (because all they really do is demonstrate an alternative method of capitalism, not an alternative to capitalism). There are plenty of other businesses which are not ideologically motivated but are worker owned/worker managed. Are these organizations also somehow revolutionary? Or does the simple attatchment of an ideology make something revolutionary?

[Sosa]

I don't think anyone said the co-ops are the future. I definitely think that they are a good thing in the context of a capitalist economy. Obviously in a post-revolutionary communist society there would be no need for them. They aren't meant to be an end goal of course.

[chegitz guevara]

What the fuck is your problem?

Way to miss the sarcasm.

[chegitz guevara]

"see"? no, you assume. I personally know many of these people and they are all workers. You can continue to make assumptions or you can actually contact them and get their side of the story if you wish.

Your knowing them means diddly squat.

Seven people bought a business. Their relationship to the means of production is that of owners.

The proletariat is defined as, that class of people which has nothing to sell but it's labor-power. They have something to sell other than their labor-power. They sell coffee, and they can sell their business if they wish. They are no more workers than someone who owns his own shop, or a lawyer or a doctor or a fisherman.

[Sosa]

btw, I didn't say that the concepts of co-ops were revolutionary

[Zanthorus]

I am as opposed to 'self-managed' capitalism as anyone but there is a lot of bullshit in this thread. I'll go for what I think is the fundamental point:


Contrary to popular belief class is... determined by... you relationship to the means of production.


Economic class is... dictated by your relationship to the means of production, and in this case the relationship of these people to the means of production is that of owners of the business.


...if you work in a co-op you own the means of production, you're not hired by the boss, you are the boss, you and everybody who works there jointly own the means of production, and because they still work there it makes them petite-bourgeoise.


Their relationship to the means of production is that of owners.

See, I've trawled through all three volumes of Capital and I've never seen this definition of class, nor do I see how it relates to Marx's analysis in any way. The capitalist and working classes are the fundamental categories necessary for the production of the productive forces of social labour as a power opposed to the labourers. The distance of the other proposed definition of class becomes obviously opposed to Marx's analysis when we get to a 'class' like the petty bourgeoisie. Marx did not see the petty bourgeoisie as a 'class' in the same way as the working class is a 'class', in the 18th Brumaire he refers to it as a 'transitional class'. It plays no essential, fundamental role in social production, it's existence is solely due to the fact that reality is slightly more complicated than the fairly abstract picture Marx drew in Capital.

When we get to calling workers' in co-operatives 'petty bourgeois' then we've really gone off the deep end. Marx had a lot of things to say about co-operatives, regarded an exclusive focus on them as the plaything of bourgeois humanitarians and reformers, said that they would remain a sham until social production was regulated according to a common plan. One thing he didn't say was that co-op workers were 'petty bourgeois', what he did say was that within them the associated labourers became their own capitalist, the conflict between social labour and the individual labourers was re-organised, reformulated but the essential point remained in existence, the co-op workers remained wage-labourers.


The moral strength behind Marxism is an opposition to capitalist exploitation.

You're confusing Marxism with Proudhonism.

[gorillafuck]

people thinking it's counter-revolutionary are being just as dumb as the people thinking that it's a victory for workers. It's neither, it's a shop run in capitalism by some socialists who work and run it, it's not anything. This site is full of people who are constantly either saying everything is reactionary and trying to be pessimistic or saying pointless things are workers victories and being naive.

[Robocommie]

When we get to calling workers' in co-operatives 'petty bourgeois' then we've really gone off the deep end. Marx had a lot of things to say about co-operatives, regarded an exclusive focus on them as the plaything of bourgeois humanitarians and reformers, said that they would remain a sham until social production was regulated according to a common plan.

Ooh, could you point me in the direction of this writing? Because I'd really like to read about this. :)

[Sosa]

people thinking it's counter-revolutionary are being just as dumb as the people thinking that it's a victory for workers. It's neither, it's a shop run in capitalism by some socialists who work and run it, it's not anything. This site is full of people who are constantly either saying everything is reactionary and trying to be pessimistic or saying pointless things are workers victories and being naive.

I'm assuming that you're referring to me and my statement about it being a victory. Looking back I probably shouldn't of said that. I didn't mean to say that this is somehow a victory for all workers. I might have been exaggerating a bit by saying its a victory but thats not how I meant it. However, I do believe it's a positive thing to happen in our community which is dominated by reactionary right-wing fundamentalist capitalists.

[Zanthorus]

Ooh, could you point me in the direction of this writing? Because I'd really like to read about this. :)

I think the majority of Marx's writing on co-operatives comes from his time in the International Workingmen's Association. The first relevant quote that comes to mind is this paragraph from his innaugural address:


At the same time the experience of the period from 1848 to 1864 has proved beyond doubt that, however, excellent in principle and however useful in practice, co-operative labor, if kept within the narrow circle of the casual efforts of private workmen, will never be able to arrest the growth in geometrical progression of monopoly, to free the masses, nor even to perceptibly lighten the burden of their miseries. It is perhaps for this very reason that plausible noblemen, philanthropic middle-class spouters, and even keep political economists have all at once turned nauseously complimentary to the very co-operative labor system they had vainly tried to nip in the bud by deriding it as the utopia of the dreamer, or stigmatizing it as the sacrilege of the socialist. To save the industrious masses, co-operative labor ought to be developed to national dimensions, and, consequently, to be fostered by national means. Yet the lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economic monopolies. So far from promoting, they will continue to lay every possible impediment in the way of the emancipation of labor. Remember the sneer with which, last session, Lord Palmerston put down the advocated of the Irish Tenants’ Right Bill. The House of Commons, cried he, is a house of landed proprietors. To conquer political power has, therefore, become the great duty of the working classes. They seem to have comprehended this, for in England, Germany, Italy, and France, there have taken place simultaneous revivals, and simultaneous efforts are being made at the political organization of the workingmen’s party.

There's also The Civil War in France:


The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization!

Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, “impossible” communism! Why, those members of the ruling classes who are intelligent enough to perceive the impossibility of continuing the present system – and they are many – have become the obtrusive and full-mouthed apostles of co-operative production. If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?

And the section on 'co-operative labour' in his instructions to the delegates of the IWMA provisional council:


Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wages slaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative system will never transform capitalist society. to convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves.

Those are the ones that spring instantly to mind. In his letter to Engels announcing his entry into the IWMA he mentioned a number of articles written by Ernest Jones under his guidance in the journal 'Notes to the People' in the period 1851-52 against the co-operative movement whose content was the same as Lassalle's polemic against Schulze-Delitzsch but I don't know if the Jones articles are still extant.

[28350]

the working class eats meat and drinks beer

And swings giant hammers?

[Die Neue Zeit]

See, I've trawled through all three volumes of Capital and I've never seen this definition of class, nor do I see how it relates to Marx's analysis in any way. The capitalist and working classes are the fundamental categories necessary for the production of the productive forces of social labour as a power opposed to the labourers. The distance of the other proposed definition of class becomes obviously opposed to Marx's analysis when we get to a 'class' like the petty bourgeoisie. Marx did not see the petty bourgeoisie as a 'class' in the same way as the working class is a 'class', in the 18th Brumaire he refers to it as a 'transitional class'. It plays no essential, fundamental role in social production, it's existence is solely due to the fact that reality is slightly more complicated than the fairly abstract picture Marx drew in Capital.

When we get to calling workers' in co-operatives 'petty bourgeois' then we've really gone off the deep end. Marx had a lot of things to say about co-operatives, regarded an exclusive focus on them as the plaything of bourgeois humanitarians and reformers, said that they would remain a sham until social production was regulated according to a common plan. One thing he didn't say was that co-op workers were 'petty bourgeois', what he did say was that within them the associated labourers became their own capitalist, the conflict between social labour and the individual labourers was re-organised, reformulated but the essential point remained in existence, the co-op workers remained wage-labourers.


I think the majority of Marx's writing on co-operatives comes from his time in the International Workingmen's Association.

Those are the ones that spring instantly to mind. In his letter to Engels announcing his entry into the IWMA he mentioned a number of articles written by Ernest Jones under his guidance in the journal 'Notes to the People' in the period 1851-52 against the co-operative movement whose content was the same as Lassalle's polemic against Schulze-Delitzsch but I don't know if the Jones articles are still extant.

It's more accurate, comrade, to say that workers in coops (assuming they're not subcontracted labour) become their own collective petty capitalist. In this, though, they're no different from petit-bourgeois business partners re. partnerships as a legal business entity and the possibility of subordinate labour, either hired labour for the partners or subcontracted labour for the coops. Comrade Chegitz may have a point.

[Decommissioner]

Ok, this is what I don't get.

A group of friends get an idea to start a music venue for punk bands. They band their money together, buy a space, and put on shows. They are able to keep afloat with the money made off of these shows and pay their bills.

This is what I have done in the past. We did not exploit workers, and there was no boss, we did the work ourselves, we were effectively "self employed." I can accept the fact that since we now exist under capitalism, this space we created is technically classified as a business, but what about after capitalism? We did not make profit from the surplus value of labor, however we did at a time own a means of production.

Under socialism, what means will workers have to create these spaces? Say for instance a group of workers want to start a bar, a restaurant..a small space that obviously wont exploit workers, but wont warrant a council to itself. Will these still be called "businesses?" This of course assuming in such society, money has been outlawed. I would like to imagine that not only will these places exist under socialism, but that they will flourish since it would not longer require capital to invest in them but perhaps a more democratic way of starting such spaces.

[bcbm]

however we did at a time own a means of production

i wouldn't say so.. you owned a business but it doesn't sound like anything was produced by it

[chegitz guevara]

They owned a place and sold a service. Those are means of production, albeit, small ones.

While I have considerable respect for Zanthorus' encyclopedic knowledge of Marxism (really, the mother fucker blows me away), I think using examples of worker co-ops in revolutionary situations to characterize the same thing within capitalism is not correct.

It's all about context and relationships. In capitalism, this is a small business. Under socialism, it would be a worker co-op.

I think anyone characterizing this is reactionary (if anyone did, I didn't see it) is as incorrect as characterizing it as a victory. It's just a nice thing. I'd buy coffee there and try and hold events there, to support the comrades, but it's not like someone threw a brick through a bank window and really smashed capitalism. ;)

[bcbm]

i thought means of production refers to things like factories and mines as well as generally including means of distribution like railroads, ships, etc. i don't think it refers to all businesses?

[chegitz guevara]

The means of production are anything you can use to make a living. They can be as small as a laborers tools and as massive as an oil tanker (and more) and everything in between.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Ok, this is what I don't get.

This is what a few others here don't get:

1) Property is a concept. A capitalist concept. To classify people according to their "ownership" of the means of production is simply to preserve the concept of ownership for the future: the so-called "revolution" would then merely change the name of the "owners" without changing the relationships that are imposed on producers by concepts like "ownership." if you own a guitar does that make you petit-bourgeois? Or is it the important issue here whether SONY can control who hears you?

3) Reason you won't find Marx saying this or that about "class" in Kapital is, he never got around to it, we're on our own. One thing's for sure, Marx eventually saw "class" as something a lot more flexible than what he outlined in the Manifesto. Relations among producers are a lot more complex than "bourgeois," "petit-bourgeois," "worker," etc.

4) Finally: the relationship of co-operative work to capital is not simply complex now, it changed radically between, say, 1830 and 1871, so quoting early Marx on that is open to counterarguments. One thing is certain, from the 19th century to our own, from the Canuts of Lyons to the Commune to the Spanish Anarchists you'll find some of the most revolutionary potential among artisans and heads of workshops.

Frankly, I think we have every right to be deeply suspicious of those who a) are merely interested in the reappropriation of capital for their own ends, and b) are violently dismissive of those who show the greatest revolutionary potential in the present.

[x371322]

They owned a place and sold a service. Those are means of production, albeit, small ones.

While I have considerable respect for Zanthorus' encyclopedic knowledge of Marxism (really, the mother fucker blows me away), I think using examples of worker co-ops in revolutionary situations to characterize the same thing within capitalism is not correct.

It's all about context and relationships. In capitalism, this is a small business. Under socialism, it would be a worker co-op.

I think anyone characterizing this is reactionary (if anyone did, I didn't see it) is as incorrect as characterizing it as a victory. It's just a nice thing. I'd buy coffee there and try and hold events there, to support the comrades, but it's not like someone threw a brick through a bank window and really smashed capitalism. ;)

I more or less agree with this assessment. It's definitely not revolutionary, and I would also consider it a small business... but that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it's certainly one I would try to show my support for....

At any rate, I support the IWW, and I wish these guys the best of luck.
We just have to remember to keep these kinds of things in perspective.