Italy: Cooperatives brighter as capitalism sinks

[cyu]

http://www.cecop.coop/36-000-new-jobs-were-created-in

Despite the current crisis, it is estimated that between 2007 and 2011, employment in cooperatives has increased by 8%, compared with a decrease of 2.3% in all types of enterprises in Italy.

average employment figures indicate that cooperative enterprises employ 17.3 people, 5 times more than traditional companies who employ an average of 3.5 workers per firm.

[Delenda Carthago]

What exactly is the issue in the thread? Dont get it.

[Kindness]

Cooperatives are socialist initiatives -- the workers owning and controlling the means of production.

[Delenda Carthago]

Cooperatives are socialist initiatives -- the workers owning and controlling the means of production.
?!
They are WHAT?:lol:


Here in Greece we had an enormous rise on co-operatives in the 80s during PASOK's first era. Didnt brought us any step closer to socialism though.:rolleyes:


Socialism is a system that has nothing to do with production for profit, neither the market Value of the products. Petit bourgeois is the name of the class that works for itself and its not even close to being a revolutionary "class".

[cyu]

I would call it a stepping stone - a gateway drug ;) Proof that not only do workers not need capitalists ordering them around, they actually do better without capitalists.

This isn't to say the cooperative movement is the complete fix to capitalism. As long as the vast majority of the means of production are nominally "owned" by the wealthy class, there will have to come a time when control is taken away from capitalists.

Certain people may try to drive a wedge between leftists and the cooperative movement. If the lack of support leads to the success of only capitalist-controlled firms, it plays right into the hands of the right-wing. Then again, I also wouldn't say the cooperative movement should take primacy over all leftist efforts - but for those who live in too much fear to dare to take on capitalism in more direct ways, I would prefer they helped the cooperative movement than submit themselves to Walmart.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I would call it a stepping stone - a gateway drug ;) Proof that not only do workers not need capitalists ordering them around, they actually do better without capitalists.

This isn't to say the cooperative movement is the complete fix to capitalism. As long as the vast majority of the means of production are nominally "owned" by the wealthy class, there will have to come a time when control is taken away from capitalists.

The Scandinavian and Japanese agricultural markets have for a very long time been dominated by coöperatives - yet there is nothing about this that tells us anything of worth. There's nothing socialist about a coöperative on a capitalist market. The fact that they are inclined to be slightly 'kinder' is irrelevant to their essential nature.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Cooperatives are socialist initiatives -- the workers owning and controlling the means of production.

I think he means that it's a project that puts a foot in the door, a base for greater opportunity so to speak. The more co-operative enterprises the better if no revolution is currently underway as it offers workers greater control over how they organise their lives.

Besides, it's a lot better than having a boss I'm sure, especially one who is a jerk.

[Ravachol]

Yeah, some stepping stone. That's why the biggest co-operative conglomerate, the Basque Mondragon, hires private security to break strikes at its polish premises. That's why the occupied-turned-cooperative Zanon factory was brought up for loans by the World Bank in order to stay afloat as a capitalist business and why the historical shining example of "workers' self management"/self-managed capitalism only dragged on because it could sell its products to sympathetic activists: http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation

Co-operatives are simply a capitalist business model which might (or might not, depending on circumstances) be preferable to work under. It has nothing to do with communism.

[Kindness]

The Scandinavian and Japanese agricultural markets have for a very long time been dominated by coöperatives - yet there is nothing about this that tells us anything of worth. There's nothing socialist about a coöperative on a capitalist market. The fact that they are inclined to be slightly 'kinder' is irrelevant to their essential nature.

I'm guessing you don't consider market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism), distributism (http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/Distributism.html), or mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) to be legitimate forms of socialism? I'm not saying I think cooperatives are necessarily the best option, but I think any situation in which the workers own and control the means of production is preferable to corporate capitalism or USSR-style state capitalism.

I'd prefer worker cooperatives over "state-owned" industries for numerous reasons, both ethical and practical. Ethically, a cooperative type of system gives workers a state of direct ownership over the means of production, which motivates them to work harder and take more pride in what they produce. Practically, a cooperative basis of production eliminates the possibility of exploitation of workers by the "socialist" state, as occurred under Leninism-Stalinism, meaning that workers benefit far more than they would under USSR-style state capitalism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm guessing you don't consider market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism), distributism (http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/Distributism.html), or mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) to be legitimate forms of socialism? I'm not saying I think cooperatives are necessarily the best option, but I think any situation in which the workers own and control the means of production is preferable to corporate capitalism or USSR-style state capitalism.

I'd prefer worker cooperatives over "state-owned" industries for numerous reasons, both ethical and practical. Ethically, a cooperative type of system gives workers a state of direct ownership over the means of production, which motivates them to work harder and take more pride in what they produce. Practically, a cooperative basis of production eliminates the possibility of exploitation of workers by the "socialist" state, as occurred under Leninism-Stalinism, meaning that workers benefit far more than they would under USSR-style state capitalism.

Indeed, those aforementioned things are nothing but capitalism. I know you're some silly and utterly ridiculous idealist, and probably a social-democrat as well.

Whether the companies which operate on this market are state-owned, coöperatives or typical private firms makes no difference to the fundamental operations of the economy, which insofar as all other facts remain static, remains capitalism regardless of which ownership form dominates.

And why the fuck do you want the workers to work harder and take pride in their work? That's bloody irrelevant - though likewise exactly the sort of claptrap that is expected from someone whose only problem with capitalism is one born from cheap moralism. Coöperative ownership of companies on a private market simply form a separate ownership niche from more "conventional" private companies: they exist within the same sphere and the same environment, and are coloured thereby; they survive only insofar as they too fulfil the fundamental inequalities of the system, which remains capitalism regardless of ownership situations.

[Kindness]

?!
They are WHAT?:lol:


Here in Greece we had an enormous rise on co-operatives in the 80s during PASOK's first era. Didnt brought us any step closer to socialism though.:rolleyes:

I never said forming a few cooperatives alone will lead us to full socialism, only that cooperatives, in and of themselves, are socialist initiatives. Workers owning and controlling the means of production is the very definition of socialism.

Owner-operators are petit bourgeois, but I don't really see them as "capitalists" in the same sense as, for example, Wal-Mart, JPMorgan Chase, or Shell. I feel orthodox Marxian analysis is wrong. Following Neo-Marxist thought (such as that of Frank Olin Wright and Edna Bonacich), in today's society, the petit bourgeois have more in common with the proletariat than with the corporate bourgeoisie. We should ally with them (and the agrarian / peasant class) in any sort of mass movement.



Socialism is a system that has nothing to do with production for profit, neither the market Value of the products.

This is a purist definition that doesn't take into account systems such as market socialism. I'm not a market socialist, but I still consider it a form of socialism as long as workers own the means of production.

[Kindness]

Indeed, those aforementioned things are nothing but capitalism.

How is it capitalism when the proletariat owns the means of production? The USSR system of state ownership and exploitation was far more capitalistic than any of the three systems I mentioned. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, and the working class is exploited for a wage.


I know you're some silly and utterly ridiculous idealist,


I am an idealist (I consider it a compliment), but I don't think my ideas are ridiculous. Reviving Leninism seems far more ridiculous. I'm also a pragmatist in that I feel the cooperative movement is the best chance at getting socialistic ideas back into the public consciousness. Promoting Stalinism isn't going to do anything, as people saw the suffering, terror, and pain Stalinism caused in the 20th century. People don't want Stalinism, but they'll support this movement.


and probably a social-democrat as well.

Far from it. I want to smash capitalism, not reform it.


Whether the companies which operate on this market are state-owned, coöperatives or typical private firms makes no difference to the fundamental operations of the economy, which insofar as all other facts remain static, remains capitalism regardless of which ownership form dominates.

See above.


And why the fuck do you want the workers to work harder and take pride in their work?

Because I believe it builds character and moral virtue.


That's bloody irrelevant - though likewise exactly the sort of claptrap that is expected from someone whose only problem with capitalism is one born from cheap moralism.

Morality, perhaps, but not cheap moralism. I've thought long and hard about the ethical values I hold.


Coöperative ownership of companies on a private market simply form a separate ownership niche from more "conventional" private companies: they exist within the same sphere and the same environment, and are coloured thereby; they survive only insofar as they too fulfil the fundamental inequalities of the system, which remains capitalism regardless of ownership situations.

I never said cooperative ownership is the only step. I support eradicating capitalist firms along with replacing them with cooperatives.

What is your definition of capitalism? What about socialism?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How is it capitalism when the proletariat owns the means of production? The USSR system of state ownership and exploitation was far more capitalistic than any of the three systems I mentioned. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, and the working class is exploited for a wage.


How is the "capitalistic" defined? It's either capitalism or it isn't. Yes, it was essentially capitalism. It cannot be more "capitalistic" than something else: it might possess other characteristics that make it more harsh, as Chinese capitalism does when compared to Western European capitalism, but this does not make it "less capitalistic". Coöperatives are privately owned by the workers at that particular facility, whatever its nature might be, and they operate on the market, which is invariably and unavoidably, as part of its very fundamental nature, a morass of inequality and necessarily economically exploitative - yes, even to the workers at this coöperative whichever.


I am an idealist (I consider it a compliment), but I don't think my ideas are ridiculous

Consider it what you will, it's bloody ridiculous.


Far from it. I want to smash capitalism, not reform it.

In practice you are reforming it. Market socialism is capitalism. Coöperatives on a capitalist market are just another type of company.


Because I believe it builds character and moral virtue.

Having a laugh, are you! That's the daftest shit I've read since that thread wherein you moaned of violence this and that.


Morality, perhaps, but not cheap moralism. I've thought long and hard about the ethical values I hold.

All that thinking, and nothing to show for it. A vacuous regurgiation of imbecilic nonsense. The reek of sewage in Victorian London is a pleasant olfactory sensation compared to your inanities.



I never said cooperative ownership is the only step. I support eradicating capitalist firms along with replacing them with cooperatives.

Coöperatives on a market remain capitalist. Common ownership over the means of production cannot be limited to competing coöperative groups where each worker's coöperative fights with the others. That is not common ownership. The fundamental basics upon which the economy flows & operates must be changed and reshaped in the rise of socialism following a revolutionary overthrow.

[Althusser]

I feel that cooperative movement is the best chance at getting socialistic ideas back into the public consciousness.


I want to smash capitalism, not reform it.

Lol. Both of these statements were in the same post.

[Owl]

Anyway, bickering over definitions aside, I believe the same thing happened in Spain; with Mondragon. Yet another blow dealt to the "deincentivization" crowd. :D

[Ravachol]

For all the great co-op fanboys: what's the great qualitative, 'communist', difference between a co-operative and being self-employed/a precarious temp worker/freelancers (which would amount to a cooperative with 1 employee). If cooperatives are a 'push' towards communism, capital's tendency to decentralize immaterial labor in the first world and precarize large segments of the working class is a whole new interpretation of 'automarxism' I guess...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

For all the great co-op fanboys: what's the great qualitative, 'communist', difference between a co-operative and being self-employed/a precarious temp worker/freelancers (which would amount to a cooperative with 1 employee). If cooperatives are a 'push' towards communism, capital's tendency to decentralize immaterial labor in the first world and precarize large segments of the working class is a whole new interpretation of 'automarxism' I guess...

The mistake isn't in thinking co-ops are better than private businesses but just that it is a type of socialism. It is the most analogous thing to economic socialism within the logic of capitalism insofar as the workers own the means of production at their own enterprise, even if they do not own the economy in the abstract. The problem with the cooperative is that it is dependent on commercial exchange with the rest of the Capitalist economy and thus ultimately needs to compete successfully.

There are two different arguments. One is that economic cooperatives provide a more stable and egalitarian place of employment within a Capitalist economy, and the other is that they are somehow what the revolution seeks to achieve. They do work as a good stopgap measure for workers and as a way for workers to take up control over small segments of the economy, but they are still a form of Capital.

[Delenda Carthago]

This is a purist definition that doesn't take into account systems such as market socialism. I'm not a market socialist, but I still consider it a form of socialism as long as workers own the means of production.
There is no such thing my friend as "market socialism". The story of USSR, China, Vietnam etc has proven it undeniably. "market socialism" is the revisionism to capitalist roads. Which as it seems leads to full restoration of capitalism in the end. :)

[Tim Cornelis]

At best, this can be used as an argument that workers' control is inefficient, and show it is efficient even by liberal standards.

@Kindness
Without materialist analysis, any definition of socialism is arbitrary. You can define socialism as a mere relations of production, but others can define it as state intervention in the market economy. On what basis can you insist that such a definition, which would make France socialist, is false? A materialist analysis would show that socialism is a mode of production that supersedes capitalism. We can define capitalism as a system revolving around capital, and socialism as a society where production is for use. This is an objective basis for a definition of socialism.


There is no such thing my friend as "market socialism". The story of USSR, China, Vietnam etc has proven it undeniably. "market socialism" is the revisionism to capitalist roads. Which as it seems leads to full restoration of capitalism in the end. :)

You're mixing up definitions.
Market socialism = an economy where workers' cooperatives engage in commercial exchange.
Socialist market economy = China, Vietnam.

Neither are socialist though.

[Delenda Carthago]

You're mixing up definitions.
Market socialism = an economy where workers' cooperatives engage in commercial exchange.
Like Yugoslavia per say?

[cyu]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1430826&postcount=9

Increasingly, the managements of the Workers' Commonwealth occupy the role of a normal employer, concerned more with efficiency and profits than political ideology. For their part, the workers relate to their employers no differently from their counterparts in the capitalist economy. Indeed, as far as profits are concerned, Histadrut enterprises are no less eager for them than capitalist concerns...

the unthinkable happened -- strikes took place in Histadrut enterprises...

From http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-need-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit-into-todays-corporate-world/

Co-ops are companies whose ownership is shared equally among its members. Nonetheless, co-ops are usually hierarchical organisations. Democratic perhaps, but hierarchical nonetheless. Managers may be selected through some democratic process but, once selected, they delegate and command their ‘underlings’ in a manner not at all dissimilar to a standard corporation.

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2570977&postcount=67

if all energy companies were taken over by their employees, we'd have some backstop to just how terrible conditions can get. Nobody truly wants to vote himself a deathly job. However, if they are still forced to compete in a capitalist-like market, they will continue to suffer.

The alternative is cooperation among energy companies - instead of one company that does good and driving others into poverty, cooperation means safety advancements and other benefits are shared by all mine workers, improving all their lives. In essence, this basically becomes a monopoly - a traditional monopoly benefits by making decisions that benefit everyone in the monopoly - the same applies here. The difference from capitalist monopoly is that under capitalism, monopolies are still competing with customers for money - if the monopoloy is to profit, then consumers must suffer. Cooperative monopolies just expand the circle of cooperation to everyone in society - thus instead of monopolies making consumers suffer, they work together with the rest of society to benefit all within the cooperative circle.

[Skyhilist]

Co-ops are certainly better (usually) than other forms of employment, although their existence alone doesn't mean that socialism will ultimately prevail.
But I see know reason why we shouldn't support co-ops. I mean lets examine what happens based on our stance on them.
Either a) we support co-ops, which represent a reform within capitalism that wont alone bring socialism but at least (the majority or the time) bring the workers better conditions OR b) we don't support co-ops because they're reformist. Capitalism still exists and the workers are worse of without them despite the fact that they might be reformist. Socialism isn't going to happen over night. Opposing things such as co-ops because they're reformist isn't going to make the capitalist system any more likely to topple. So for that reason, I see co-ops as a positive thing, at least when compared to a world with no co-ops.

[Per Levy]

Because I believe it builds character and moral virtue.

let me ask you something, do you work? i do and you know what, my job ruins my body for a very low wage, it might ruin my private life because of the low pay and quite honestly it makes me more miserable than anything. so in what way does working and more working and taking "pride" in working "builds chartacter" and "moral virtue"(whatever that is)?

ps: "market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism), distributism (http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/Distributism.html), or mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29)" yes these are all forms of capitalism dressed a bit in red and black. doesnt change their capitalistic nature.