Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[jdhoch]

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.
Titled “Sustainable Jobs, Sustainable Communities: The Union Co-op Model,” the organizational proposal released at a press conference on March 26 in Pittsburgh, draws on the fifty-five year experience of the Basque-based Mondragon worker cooperatives. To quote the document:
MORE…


SystemicCapital .com / worker-ownership-for-the-21st-century

[Manic Impressive]

I think this is what you wanted to link to http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/27-2

Unoriginal and Utopian socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There is certainly a place in a future Socialist society for co-operatives, alongside other methods of production ownership and management. The key is that co-operatives, where they exist, do not practice worker participation but worker self-control, and operate in such a way that any surplus generated is redistributed - and only redistributed - equally amongst the entire workforce, so that in effect net surplus is always zero, even if the 'accounting surplus' exists.

Having said that, the model is obviously a corruptible one, and one that can also be adjusted to work within the confines of Capitalism. For that reason it can't really be considered either a model that facilitates revolution, or a model that on its own should be the main mode of production.

However, we have to recognise that in a future Socialist society there will be more than one type of production ownership, and there should be space for co-operatives, within the framework I outlined above.

[Manic Impressive]

However, we have to recognise that in a future Socialist society there will be more than one type of production ownership, and there should be space for co-operatives, within the framework I outlined above.
I'm a little perplexed by this. We wish to abolish private property and therefore ownership, or you could see it as everybody owning an equal share in the MoP. You seem to be advocating that different people will own different types of production. People will operate different sections of the MoP but nobody can own it outright if private property has been abolished.

[cyu]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167048/worker-ownership-21st-century

Not sure why this should be considered bad news to leftists. I only see it as bad news for pro-capitalists.

Is it better or worse for the United Steel Workers to move beyond begging CEOs for scraps and threaten to replace workplace dictatorship instead?

Is it better or worse for workplace democracy to move beyond pockets of Spain and gain ever larger beachheads in the US?

Is it better or worse for new union members to be introduced to the idea that they aren't just limited to stopping production, they can take control of it as well?

Sure it may be bad if militant workers are discouraged from their militancy and ordered to take more tame positions like paying capitalists for the companies they themselves work in, but to prevent that, that's why we're here, isn't it? =]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm a little perplexed by this. We wish to abolish private property and therefore ownership, or you could see it as everybody owning an equal share in the MoP. You seem to be advocating that different people will own different types of production. People will operate different sections of the MoP but nobody can own it outright if private property has been abolished.

Sorry I wasn't very clear. What I meant to say was that there will be more than one mode of production - so there will surely be (non-profit) co-operatives alongside one-person shops alongside workplaces controlled directly by workplace councils and so on.

I wasn't meaning to say there would be different types of ownership of the MoP, was more talking about different types of organisation of production, rather than its means.

[Ravachol]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167048/worker-ownership-21st-century

Not sure why this should be considered bad news to leftists. I only see it as bad news for pro-capitalists.

Is it better or worse for the United Steel Workers to move beyond begging CEOs for scraps and threaten to replace workplace dictatorship instead?

Is it better or worse for workplace democracy to move beyond pockets of Spain and gain ever larger beachheads in the US?

Is it better or worse for new union members to be introduced to the idea that they aren't just limited to stopping production, they can take control of it as well?

Sure it may be bad if militant workers are discouraged from their militancy and ordered to take more tame positions like paying capitalists for the companies they themselves work in, but to prevent that, that's why we're here, isn't it? =]

There is a difference between the seizure of the means of production and their management. (Anarcho-)Communists shouldn't advocate the latter without reserves. Factories, workplaces and the technical infrastructure of society is designed according to Capitalist principles and requires, at best, a major overhaul which will leave many factories/workplaces either closed or restructured in such a way we can hardly speak of 'self-management' of the factories anymore.

Rule of thumb: if the proposal involves standing near a conveyor belt all day long or staring at the same screen for hours and hours to meet productivity targets, it's not Communism, no matter how 'self-managed'.

Not saying you advocate otherwise, just pointing this out.

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry I wasn't very clear. What I meant to say was that there will be more than one mode of production - so there will surely be (non-profit) co-operatives alongside one-person shops alongside workplaces controlled directly by workplace councils and so on.

I wasn't meaning to say there would be different types of ownership of the MoP, was more talking about different types of organisation of production, rather than its means.
I thought that's what you were probably saying at least I hoped it was :D

[x359594]

" If workers can raise sufficient investment capital and find stable markets they can do better than 'check' corporate power, they can (to use Alperovitz’s word) 'displace' corporations."

And then what? A worker owned plant is still functioning in a capitalist framework and because of that will have to counter the falling rate of profit, find new markets, compete with other worker owned enterprises, etc.

The Mondragon model is a capitalist business with worker shareholders instead of absentee shareholders.

[cyu]

This is actually what I advocate

http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work

...but just because that's what I'd like to see doesn't mean I'm going to ignore everything else that comes along.

If I'm going from Texas to Boston, should I be saying, "Well, this train isn't air conditioned, so I'm going to wait. That train doesn't offer snacks, so I'm going to wait. This other train was built before 1995, so I'm going to wait. This train only takes me as far as Baltimore, so I'm going to wait."

I could stand there navel-gazing all day or complaining about all the trains I don't like. I could even try to convince the various people trying to go to Boston why none of these trains are worth their time.

Well, if capitalists only had to deal with leftists like these, they wouldn't even need riot police.

[Amal]

To me, the question is, how research and development in those factories will go. Workers must take the control or all means of production, if not possible, as much as we can and should enact some kind of collective control. Otherwise, if that means controlling of single, individual factories like capitalist, that will certainly mean disaster.
@Ravachol, if that's (looking to screens for hours or other boring monotonous jobs) necessary for production, someone have to do it, whether he personally likes it or not, that doesn't matter. Such jobs can only be omitted by automation i.e. replacement of humans with machine in such cases. In capitalist societies, such developments will end up in loss of jobs for some workers, while in a workers controlled society, it will end up in good working condition and less working hours.
So far, working hours and amount of labor is determined by level of improvement of means of production. The more modern the machinery, the less the amount of labor, that's pretty simple. If in any country, which is technically backward, workers control has been established, you cannot expect some kind of magical improvement in working condition without improving the machinery. SUCH EXPECTATIONS ARE BASICALLY IDIOTIC. Moreover, there may be other factors like external attack, sabotage, internal rebellion fueled by imperialism and/or uprooted bourgeoisie and a part of petty-bourgeoisie can also lead to bad working condition of workers. IN THAT CASE, IT CANNOT BE JUST DUMPED UPON THE ORGANIZATION OR THE LEADERSHIP BY STATING THAT THEY ARE "ANTI-WORKER" OR "CAPITALIST".

[cyu]

To me, the question is, how research and development in those factories will go.


I think there are a lot of good examples that can be adopted from the open source and open content (like WIKIs) communities. They've managed to do quite a lot of technical and knowledge advancement without the authoritarian command structures of traditional corporations. Not everything about those communities is great of course, so some picking and choosing would have to be done by various groups trying things out.



if that means controlling of single, individual factories like capitalist, that will certainly mean disaster.



The key would be setting good examples. Nobody graduates from school wanting to be a cog in a corporate machine. If they end up like that, it is only because they didn't have access to the resources to strike out on their own. However, the more alternatives there are to capitalist slavery, more graduates would be flooding into them, resulting in more alternatives and perhaps an eventual domino effect collapse as traditional authoritarian companies are no longer able to attract employees.

This isn't to say we should only work within the traditional political or economic system to overthrow capitalism. It is merely one prong of a many pronged attack. Capitalism has already ingrained and infected the existing system so it would be very difficult to purge it by simply working within the system itself.

[cyu]

http://www.populareconomics.org/going-co-op/

Think capitalism isn’t working? Several Massachusetts businesses agree and are doing something about it.

Real Pickles, Green River Ambrosia, and Katalyst Kombucha are fermenters of all kinds in Western Massachusetts, The Just Crust in Cambridge rises up by baking pizzas, and all of these businesses have transitioned into worker-owned cooperatives within the last few months.

There are no bosses to be seen. The four recently-converted Massachusetts businesses have chosen to transition to worker-ownership for a number of reasons: to embody their already existing company values, for efficiency gains, and to resolve labor disputes.

The Just Crust rises up out of the former Upper Crust in Cambridge, a dramatic story of co-op conversion out of a serious labor dispute. The Upper Crust closed in bankruptcy after a successful class-action lawsuit compelled the business to pay its workers $341,000 in back wages. Now, the lawyer who won the legal battle is helping to construct a new business from the remnants of the Upper Crust. the story is similar to other co-ops that came about after labor disputes, like Collective Copies in Western Massachusetts.

Elsewhere in the world, factory occupations by workers are converting formerly capitalist industrial enterprises into full-fledged worker-owned enterprises, like the Cooper tire factory in Mexico and the Vio.Me building materials manufacturing in Greece. Perhaps this new group of worker-owned enterprises will inspire others to rise up and go co-op.

[cyu]

http://www.cecop.coop/An-increase-of-32-in-the-creation

Worker cooperatives in Spain have grown by 32% in the third quarter of 2013, compared to the same period last year. Again, this demonstrates how this business model grows and its resilience in spite of the economic situation.

Analyzing the increase by region, almost all of them have grown. In Andalusia the rate is particularly high, 60% over the same period last year; followed by Murcia, with an increase of 21 %. Worker cooperatives in the Basque Country, Catalonia and Valencia have increased more than 11 %.

The president of the Spanish Confederation of Worker Cooperatives (COCETA) indicated that while worker cooperatives “are no strangers to hardship and suffer the blows of the overall situation, they have managed to not only maintain but increase the number of jobs” while stressing that ”we are talking about long term jobs, employment has grown by more than 10 points, while temporary employment has decreased by more than 8 points”.

Over 80% of the people in these businesses have a steady job, since they are members of the cooperative. In addition, women hold nearly 50% of cooperative jobs, and 40% of the positions of responsibility, which is above other business models. “This is not just any job but a quality one, based on the essence of cooperatives: democracy, social responsibility, solidarity, commitment and flexibility, as evidenced by the fact that the survival of cooperatives has also experienced growth"