Log in

View Full Version : Neo-Hippyism



cyu
26th May 2012, 16:33
Doubtless some will be more capable of radical transformation, while others will suffer from lack of vision or cowardice. How many are ready to use death from lack of access to resources as justification for defying society's norms? The coming months will tell.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/155452/the_rise_of_the_new_economy_movement/?page=entire

The broad goal is democratized ownership of the economy for the “99 percent” in an ecologically sustainable and participatory community-building fashion.

Thousands of real world projects -- from solar-powered businesses to worker-owned cooperatives and state-owned banks -- are underway across the country. Many are self-consciously understood as attempts to develop working prototypes in state and local “laboratories of democracy” that may be applied at regional and national scale

The Evergreen Cooperatives in a desperately poor neighborhood of Cleveland are a leading example. They include a worker-owned solar installation and weatherization co-op; a state-of-the-art, industrial-scale commercial laundry in a LEED-Gold certified building that uses—and therefore has to heat—only around a third of the water of other laundries; and a soon-to-open large scale hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing three million head of lettuce and 300,000 pounds of herbs a year. Hospitals and universities in the area have agreed to use the co-ops’ services, and several cities—including Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Washington, DC and Amarillo, Texas are now exploring similar efforts.

Organic Valley is a cooperative dairy producer in based in Wisconsin with more than $700 million in revenue and nearly 1,700 farmer-owners. Upstream 21 Corporation is a “socially responsible” holding company that purchases and expands sustainable small businesses. Greyston Bakery is a Yonkers, New York “B-Corporation” (a new type of corporation designed to benefit the public) that was initially founded to provide jobs for neighborhood residents. Today, Greystone generates around $6.5 million in annual sales.

the United Steelworkers union broke modern labor movement tradition and entered into a historic agreement with the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center to help build worker-owned cooperatives in the United States along the lines of a new “union-co-op” model.

Upwards of 10 million Americans now also work at some 11,000 employee-owned firms (ESOP companies).

Since 2010, 17 states, have considered legislation to set up public banks along the lines of the long-standing Bank of North Dakota.

Other cities, like San Jose and Portland, are developing efforts to move their money out of Wall Street banks and into other commercial banks, community banks or credit unions. Politicians and activists in San Francisco have taken this a step further and proposed the creation of a publicly owned municipal bank.

in several parts of the country, alternative currencies have long been used to help local community building—notably “BerkShares” in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and “Ithaca Hours” in Ithaca, New York.

A number of advocates, like Boston College professor Charles Derber, contemplate putting worker, consumer, environmental, or community representatives of “stakeholder” groups on corporate boards.

David Schweickart and Richard Wolff, propose system-wide change that emphasizes one or another form of worker ownership and management. (In the Schweickart version, smaller firms would be essentially directly managed by workers; large-scale national firms would be nationalized but also managed by workers.)

The National Center for Employee Ownership met in Minneapolis—to record-breaking attendance.

wunks
26th May 2012, 16:46
this is basically green party style capitalist leftism. co-ops aren't non-capitalist. just look at the most famous co-op enterprise mondragon http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008

edit: and state banks helping lead to an alternative society? this is laughable.

Rowan Duffy
29th May 2012, 09:52
Unions aren't non-capitalist. That doesn't mean we should be opposed to unions. The question of what we should support should never be based on taboo. Our strategic orientation should be dictated by our end goals, and the tactics that we take should fit into that strategic orientation. In this way someone could make a claim for the importance of the party form, syndicalism or what have you, but simply berating something as "green party style capitalist leftism" or that it is "not non-capitalist" is insufficient.

There are a number of reasons that coops could significantly alter the terrain in our favour.

Historically cooperatives were very useful to propel syndicalism in the UK where the cooperatives would allow the strikers to run up long term tabs at the shops leading to far greater militancy. This sort of thing has a tremendous effect on the balance of forces.

Cooperatives also garner surplus which they can use to support socialist projects and other cooperatives, which can lead to a virtuous cycle. Since we are so desperately in need of resources, this in particular is worth carefully thinking about.

In addition, cooperatives can give their employee/owners practice with running production, something that is desperately needed for effective transition.

Further, it's my contention that cooperatives with a view towards amalgamation, especially along the supply chain, but also in terms of acquiring services used by the owner-employees, provides an excellent experimental lab for the implementation of effective planning.

The state is so hard to capture and once there, so weak in its relationship with capital that without going directly to the coercive arm of the state it becomes very difficult to re-arrange the mode of production. Using the coercive arm too much will lead to degeneration of the revolution and an alienated population which is not conducive to socialism.

Cooperatives can not be a panacea, and if they are not politicised, they are not of much use. Further the internal form and content of the cooperative matters as well. For the programme of the cooperatives to potentiate transition requires that the cooperatives be both democratic, and ideologically devoted to the task of taking the means of production for the working class generally.

It's worth thinking about the pressures that capitalism exerts on cooperatives which limit their range of motion and I encourage that. However, dismissing them out of hand is not helpful.

Die Neue Zeit
2nd June 2012, 03:58
Comrade, what "business model" do you think is appropriate for coops? For-profit? Non-profit?

campesino
2nd June 2012, 04:16
I dismiss co-ops because they don't develop class consciousness or class struggle, they are not a manner of creating or spreading communism. coops just turn workers into bourgeoisie, as soon as they see their quality of life improve, they will forget about the workers of the world. when asked about the workers of the world,their advice to the workers will be "pull yourselves up by the boot-straps and form coops." the working class will lead the revolution. to expect it to be anything else, is to expect that the business executives who talk at TED will lead the world.

co-ops=micro-credit

Geiseric
2nd June 2012, 04:57
I think you're talking about "Post Modernism." which is still garbage.

Sea
2nd June 2012, 05:03
I dismiss co-ops because they don't develop class consciousness or class struggle, they are not a manner of creating or spreading communism.
They're not supposed to.

Co-ops are merely an attempt at interfacing the (pseudo-)egalitarian ethic to a capitalist business.

Prometeo liberado
2nd June 2012, 05:14
David Schweickart and Richard Wolff, propose system-wide change that emphasizes one or another form of worker ownership and management. (In the Schweickart version, smaller firms would be essentially directly managed by workers; large-scale national firms would be nationalized but also managed by workers.)


Wow, this is groundbreaking! Marx and Engels had it all wrong. Systemic change that only emphasizes a form of worker control? Keeping the wage system on different levels, what??

cyu
12th June 2012, 11:32
More from the "mainstream" press - I wonder how much tension there is working on stories like this when your own company isn't.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/31/why-we-need-more-employee-owned-businesses

John Lewis Partnership owns the biggest department store chain in England. With $13.7 billion in 2011 revenues and 81,000 employees, it would rank in the Fortune 200. With revenues up about 7.4 percent annually over the past decade, it grew faster than Macy's. It stayed profitable throughout the Great Recession. Perhaps most importantly, it succeeds while providing fair compensation (including pensions) and giving employees control over the business.

The constitution can only be changed by vote of the Partnership Council, which is controlled by employees.

John Lewis Partnership is part of a paradigm shift from "extractive ownership" to "generative ownership"

"Generative ownership returns economies to their original purpose, which is to advance human well-being." John Lewis Partnership certainly fits the generative model. Its stated purpose is the "happiness" of its staff, which results from "worthwhile and satisfying employment in a successful business."

American companies with substantial employee ownership often outperform those without, with lower staff turnover, higher trust

Publix Super Markets, the largest employee-owned company in the United States, has over $24 billion in revenue and more than 140,000 employees. Publix ranks among the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America."

When companies get into trouble so deep that they need a bailout, let's seize the opportunity for change. If a bailout is needed, it should come with a new governance and compensation structure.