Co-operative Economics and The Co-operative Commonwealth?

[Motorvating]

So, some lectures of Marxist Economist Richard Wolff are still lingering in my mine, and the though I've read Marx, Wolff's one following his book Democracy in the Workplace: A Cure for Capitalism is the reason why I'm curious in alternatives of capitalism, even though I'm usually just plain democratic socialist who can't think of think of anything other than keeping the beast under the people's heel.

Basically, can you help me learn more about co-operative economics? Other than Wolff's book, what are some other resources (pdfs/looks are obviously very much welcome) on the subject.

And what you do you guys think of the idea of a co-operative commonwealth as an alternative economic system to capitalism and communism?

[Sabot Cat]

Hi, there and welcome to the forum! :)

Well, I don't think a global co-operative commonwealth, if I'm understanding it correctly, would be all that different from a communist society. So I'd say I'm in favor of it, and I think Richard Wolff is a pretty good author but I don't have much in the way of contemporary recommendations on this particular topic.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Capitalism is a mode of production defined by the private ownership of the means of production - note that private ownership is not necessarily individual ownership. Most corporations are owned jointly by their stockholders, after all. What defines private ownership is not the number of owners, but the relation whereby one section of society - an individual, the stockholders, or workers in a cooperative - has exclusive control over a particular portion of the means of production. This results in wage labor, market distribution etc. etc. Therefore, cooperatives are not an alternative to capitalism - they are capitalist entities.

edit: The great Trotskyist revisionist Michel Pablo spent most of his political life crusading for "self-management", which in practice meant capitalist cooperatives masquerading as "socialism". You might want to check out his work for another look at the problem - but quite frankly, I consider it rubbish, and note that Pablo himself managed to end up as a minister in a bourgeois state. And it can get so confusing at times - he might name a pamphlet "Self-management" and then talk mostly about education - in horrible platitudes.

[Sabot Cat]

Capitalism is a mode of production defined by the private ownership of the means of production - note that private ownership is not necessarily individual ownership. Most corporations are owned jointly by their stockholders, after all. What defines private ownership is not the number of owners, but the relation whereby one section of society - an individual, the stockholders, or workers in a cooperative - has exclusive control over a particular portion of the means of production. This results in wage labor, market distribution etc. etc. Therefore, cooperatives are not an alternative to capitalism - they are capitalist entities.

I think there's a significant difference between capitalists owning means of production and workers owning means of production, even if it's on a comparatively small scale. What makes the difference is that workers, at least in that organization, actually have a say in what happens if it's a cooperative.

Yes, I agree that we can't just "cooperativize" our way out out of capitalism. And one cooperative does not create a workers' means of production, but then again, one socialist organization doesn't make a socialist society either. And if the entire economy were to be managed by a federation of cooperatives (which is what is proposed here), and if each worker has a vote in the decisions of their organization, I'm not sure what objections one could have with the ownership of the means of production. How can you call a society, if it lacks stock owners, bankers, corporate executives, board members and overlord-planners, or anyone who fulfills those roles in relation to the proletariat, capitalist?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I think there's a significant difference between capitalists owning means of production and workers owning means of production, even if it's on a comparatively small scale. What makes the difference is that workers, at least in that organization, actually have a say in what happens if it's a cooperative.

But owning the means of production makes one a capitalist; capitalists aren't defined by wealth or birth or being greedy, but their relation to the means of production. Usually the influence of worker-stockholders on the running of their firms - and their returns from stock ownership - are practically negligible, although the high strata of the proletariat can be pretty bourgeoisified. What you propose is that we encourage this process of bourgeoisification!

But of course it can't work. Capitalism without the proletariat is nonsensical. Most western cooperatives simply export exploitation to regions of late capitalist development.


Yes, I agree that we can't just "cooperativize" our way out out of capitalism. And one cooperative does not create a workers' means of production, but then again, one socialist organization doesn't make a socialist society either.

No one said that it does. And thank god nonexisting - imagine if the socialist society were a federation of people from Solidarity, FIT, SPGB, whatever - I'd rather live in Democratic Kampuchea.


And if the entire economy were to be managed by a federation of cooperatives (which is what is proposed here), and if each worker has a vote in the decisions of their organization, I'm not sure what objections one could have with the ownership of the means of production.

Given any particular piece of the means of production - a tool, a factory, and so on - there is still a small group that exercises exclusive control over this piece of the MoP. This is simply "prettified" capitalism, and if it were possible (capitalism without the proletariat isn't) it would simply reproduce all the faults of capitalist society, from the anarchy of the market to periodic crises.


How can you call a society, if it lacks stock owners, bankers, corporate executives, board members and overlord-planners, or anyone who fulfills those roles in relation to the proletariat, capitalist?

Because small capitalists are still capitalists. Besides, who said there wouldn't be bankers? These cooperatives you envision would be forced to trade - so the need would arise for specialized institutions to deal with the money. The only difference is that every time I go to the bank to withdraw money from my meager account - most of us would probably work in a shit cooperative that would be able to give us starvation wages profits - the bank clerk would also be an owner of the bank. Hooray! (That was sarcasm.)

[Motorvating]

Hi, there and welcome to the forum! :)

Well, I don't think a global co-operative commonwealth, if I'm understanding it correctly, would be all that different from a communist society. So I'd say I'm in favor of it, and I think Richard Wolff is a pretty good author but I don't have much in the way of contemporary recommendations on this particular topic.
Well, there is a reason co-operatives HAVE been called Marxist enterprises. The whole point is literally putting the means of production in the hands of the people. From what I understand, the difference is that a co-operative commonwealth would just do it by transforming the private sector instead of abolishing it, either by requirements of by having the establish laws and infrastructure making ti the most viable kind of business model.



Capitalism is a mode of production defined by the private ownership of the means of production - note that private ownership is not necessarily individual ownership. Most corporations are owned jointly by their stockholders, after all. What defines private ownership is not the number of owners, but the relation whereby one section of society - an individual, the stockholders, or workers in a cooperative - has exclusive control over a particular portion of the means of production. This results in wage labor, market distribution etc. etc. Therefore, cooperatives are not an alternative to capitalism - they are capitalist entities.

edit: The great Trotskyist revisionist Michel Pablo spent most of his political life crusading for "self-management", which in practice meant capitalist cooperatives masquerading as "socialism". You might want to check out his work for another look at the problem - but quite frankly, I consider it rubbish, and note that Pablo himself managed to end up as a minister in a bourgeois state. And it can get so confusing at times - he might name a pamphlet "Self-management" and then talk mostly about education - in horrible platitudes.

Well, I'd say there's a distinction, though. IT would be based on free enterprise, but effectively makes the capitalist themselves obsolete. It's based in free enterprise, but it's still a large enough paradigm shift to be something to consider, especially since it would likely be easier to set and maintain such a system. And there's cases even in real co-operatives where the collectively owned private entity becomes essentially a public institution of the community. Mondragon seems to be a good example. I think when the very idea of what is private becomes altered, and thus the public private distinction becomes blurred, I think problems with private property are lessened.

Well, and about the the stockholders. You're making a false equivalent. That's an oligarchy. That's what the bourgeois IS: A small group controlling the whole. I'm talking about a direct, or in the case of union co-operative models a representative democracy.

But thank you for mentioning Michel Pablo.

[Sabot Cat]

But owning the means of production makes one a capitalist; capitalists aren't defined by wealth or birth or being greedy, but their relation to the means of production. Usually the influence of worker-stockholders on the running of their firms - and their returns from stock ownership - are practically negligible, although the high strata of the proletariat can be pretty bourgeoisified. What you propose is that we encourage this process of bourgeoisification! But of course it can't work. Capitalism without the proletariat is nonsensical. Most western cooperatives simply export exploitation to regions of late capitalist development.


Workers wouldn't be exploiting other workers in their cooperative or any other organization; the rest of this has so much conclusion jumping it makes me feel tired. Besides, I already clearly stated that I don't think worker cooperatives are a means to abolish capitalism.



Because small capitalists are still capitalists. Besides, who said there wouldn't be bankers? These cooperatives you envision would be forced to trade - so the need would arise for specialized institutions to deal with the money. The only difference is that every time I go to the bank to withdraw money from my meager account - most of us would probably work in a shit cooperative that would be able to give us starvation wages profits - the bank clerk would also be an owner of the bank. Hooray! (That was sarcasm.)


I said the economy would be managed by them, actually.

Well, there is a reason co-operatives HAVE been called Marxist enterprises. The whole point is literally putting the means of production in the hands of the people. From what I understand, the difference is that a co-operative commonwealth would just do it by transforming the private sector instead of abolishing it, either by requirements of by having the establish laws and infrastructure making ti the most viable kind of business model.

Mmm... I believe that a general, sit-down strike combined with mass protest and other revolutionary tactics, by a working class who is well aware of how they're being exploited by the bourgeois, would be necessary for them to attain real power. Capitalism cannot be transformed into socialism by any other means but revolution.

[Motorvating]

I said the economy would be managed by them, actually.


Mmm... I believe that a general, sit-down strike combined with mass protest and other revolutionary tactics, by a working class who is well aware of how they're being exploited by the bourgeois, would be necessary for them to attain real power. Capitalism cannot be transformed into socialism by any other means but revolution.
i agree with you. You just misinterpreted what I said. I was talking about the end result and maintence, not the means. Part of hat your talking about is actually largely how the co-operative movement has gained momentum in America and in Argentina, workers occupying and taking over the abandoned factories they used to work in.

[Sabot Cat]

i agree with you. You just misinterpreted what I said. I was talking about the end result and maintence, not the means. Part of hat your talking about is actually largely how the co-operative movement has gained momentum in America and in Argentina, workers occupying and taking over the abandoned factories they used to work in.

Oh okay~ Sorry for misinterpreting what you said~

And yeah, I think the factory reclamation movement is pretty exciting; I'd say Latin America is and has been a focal point of the global socialist movement for a while now. :)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well, I'd say there's a distinction, though. IT would be based on free enterprise, but effectively makes the capitalist themselves obsolete.

Marxists consider capitalists to be defined by their relation to the means of production. This relation - private ownership - is preserved in cooperatives even if it is "spread around". Now, I think that any other definition of a capitalist would either exclude people who are obviously capitalists as the term is commonly used, or include people who are obviously not. But if you have an alternative definition in mind, I would be interested in hearing it.


It's based in free enterprise, but it's still a large enough paradigm shift to be something to consider, especially since it would likely be easier to set and maintain such a system. And there's cases even in real co-operatives where the collectively owned private entity becomes essentially a public institution of the community. Mondragon seems to be a good example.

Of one community, perhaps. But in company towns, the company was also a public institution of sorts. Globally, Mondragon still relies on the superexploitation of labor from the developing world.


I think when the very idea of what is private becomes altered, and thus the public private distinction becomes blurred, I think problems with private property are lessened.

Public ownership is also not necessarily socialist; in the present conditions, public ownership means state ownership, and the state in question is a bourgeois state, an executive committee of one national section of the bourgeoisie.


Well, and about the the stockholders. You're making a false equivalent. That's an oligarchy. That's what the bourgeois IS: A small group controlling the whole. I'm talking about a direct, or in the case of union co-operative models a representative democracy.

Most joint-stock companies are effectively owned by a small subsection of their stockholders. But that is not necessarily the case. You seem to be suggesting that an enterprise can go from capitalist to socialist (I doubt the term "socialist enterprise" makes sense) by changing the structure of ownership - by fiddling with the number of shares assigned to each person, effectively.


Workers wouldn't be exploiting other workers in their cooperative or any other organization [...]

But that's what the owners of Mondragon do - they participate in the superexploitation of labor in regions of late capitalist development like South America etc. Without this exploitation, the entire system would amount to generalized petty commodity production - which is an obvious impossibility.


I said the economy would be managed by them, actually.

"Them" being who, exactly? How does that address anything in the paragraph you quote?

[Sabot Cat]

Most joint-stock companies are effectively owned by a small subsection of their stockholders. But that is not necessarily the case. You seem to be suggesting that an enterprise can go from capitalist to socialist (I doubt the term "socialist enterprise" makes sense) by changing the structure of ownership - by fiddling with the number of shares assigned to each person, effectively.

If every workers that works at a factor actually owns that factory equally, the workers would literally control the means of production for that business. So it's the difference between the workers there controlling the means of production, or not.


But that's what the owners of Mondragon do - they participate in the superexploitation of labor in regions of late capitalist development like South America etc. Without this exploitation, the entire system would amount to generalized petty commodity production - which is an obvious impossibility.


Not all cooperatives are Mondragon, however.


"Them" being who, exactly? How does that address anything in the paragraph you quote?

Them being the international federation of cooperatives with recallable delegates, identical to a structure with revolutionary labor unions.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

If every workers that works at a factor actually owns that factory equally, the workers would literally control the means of production for that business. So it's the difference between the workers there controlling the means of production, or not.

Communists demand ownership of the means of production, as a unit, by the workers, as a class. Not ownership of pieces of the MoP by groups of workers - who cease to be workers by owning individual pieces of the MoP and become bourgeois.


Not all cooperatives are Mondragon, however.

A few posts ago you were extolling Mondragon! So name one cooperative that does not participate in this superexploitation.


Them being the international federation of cooperatives with recallable delegates, identical to a structure with revolutionary labor unions.

How is this any different from mutualist schemes?

[Sabot Cat]

Communists demand ownership of the means of production, as a unit, by the workers, as a class. Not ownership of pieces of the MoP by groups of workers - who cease to be workers by owning individual pieces of the MoP and become bourgeois.

Yes, but Communists also don't oppose workers owning the means of production in small pockets until this can happen if they aren't exploiting anyone else.



A few posts ago you were extolling Mondragon!

I don't know on what basis you assert they exploit workers from less wealthy nations, but I've heard a similar claim from Chomsky, and I don't think it's really necessary to debate it because not all cooperatives happen to be Mondragon.


So name one cooperative that does not participate in this superexploitation.


The Zapatista coffee cooperatives, the Indian Coffee Houses, Suma, the 200 worker cooperatives in Argentina following 2001, the numerous Venezuelan cooperatives, and others.


How is this any different from mutualist schemes?

Means, aims, organization? I'm not sure how it's similar, actually.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Yes, but Communists also don't oppose workers owning the means of production in small pockets until this can happen if they aren't exploiting anyone else.

Communists do not oppose someone buying corporate stocks either. The communist movement aims to smash capitalism, not to dictate how people should live their lives under capitalism.

However, consistent communists oppose the spreading of illusions about cooperatives, in particular the notion that cooperatives are an alternative to capitalism, or the notion that a loose federation of market-based cooperatives is a viable alternative to a socially-owned, centrally-planned economy.

Furthermore, the worker who becomes one of the owners of their cooperative ceases to be proletarian - and are therefore, at best, of secondary concern to communists, unless exceptional circumstances are in place.


The Zapatista coffee cooperatives, the Indian Coffee Houses, Suma, the 200 worker cooperatives in Argentina following 2001, the numerous Venezuelan cooperatives, and others.

Let's consider the Zapatista coffee cooperatives, then. Now, these cooperatives do not participate in the superexploitation of labor from underdeveloped countries to a significant extent - being embedded in a market, of course, they do participate in this superexploitation to some extent.

So how are they doing, economically? Not very well, I'm afraid. The reason cooperative-fetishists always mention Mondragon is that it's a fairly large, successful corporation. These coffee cooperatives are held together by political will and "fair trade" faddism.

Small-scale petit-bourgeois agriculture is grossly inefficient and would have been wiped out decades ago were it not for a backlash from radical liberals - the sort of people who think five-person farms are "progressive" while Monsanto is the Earthly incarnation of our lord Satan - and populists who rely on the peasant strata, particularly the well-off peasants.

Notice that all of the cooperatives you mentioned by name are agricultural. Why are there no industrial cooperatives that do not participate in the superexploitation of Third World labor?


Means, aims, organization? I'm not sure how it's similar, actually.

Both mutualism and your "federation of cooperatives" would give individuals and small groups exclusive control over one segment of the means of production, both would rely on market mechanisms and federalism.

[robbo203]

Yes, I agree that we can't just "cooperativize" our way out out of capitalism. And one cooperative does not create a workers' means of production, but then again, one socialist organization doesn't make a socialist society either. And if the entire economy were to be managed by a federation of cooperatives (which is what is proposed here), and if each worker has a vote in the decisions of their organization, I'm not sure what objections one could have with the ownership of the means of production. How can you call a society, if it lacks stock owners, bankers, corporate executives, board members and overlord-planners, or anyone who fulfills those roles in relation to the proletariat, capitalist?

Nice idea in principle but how are you going to get from where we are today to the kind of economy managed by a federation of cooperatives that you espouse given the fact that capital is becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer hands?

Competing against capitalist corporations on their own terms is a bit of a David and Goliath situation in which the weaker will go against the wall or more likely be swallowed up wholesale by the stronger. On the other hand, to effectively compete you have to ruthless in suboridnating the interests of wage labour to those of capital - in fact become more and like the very contentional capitalist enterprises you are supposed to have moved away from. This is precisely what has been happening in the case of the large Mondragon cooperative in Northern Spain with its recent decision to lay off a whole lot of workers etc

Richard Wolff incidentally is rather overrated as a theorist and I wouldnt put much store by what he has to say. Some of his ideas are decidedly shaky if nor verging on the crackpot

[Motorvating]

Oh, ummm, I hope it's okay that I'm not posting much in the thread. I mostly just put it up for actually learning about the subject, and don't think I'm ready for much in the way of debating just yet

[Sabot Cat]

Oh, ummm, I hope it's okay that I'm not posting much in the thread. I mostly just put it up for actually learning about the subject, and don't think I'm ready for much in the way of debating just yet

It's okay; that's what the learning forum is for anyway~ ^_^


Communists do not oppose someone buying corporate stocks either. The communist movement aims to smash capitalism, not to dictate how people should live their lives under capitalism.

However, consistent communists oppose the spreading of illusions about cooperatives, in particular the notion that cooperatives are an alternative to capitalism, or the notion that a loose federation of market-based cooperatives is a viable alternative to a socially-owned, centrally-planned economy.

I never said they would be market-based or loosely federated. It would be a socially-owned, centrally-planned economy built upon the cooperative structure.


Let's consider the Zapatista coffee cooperatives, then. Now, these cooperatives do not participate in the superexploitation of labor from underdeveloped countries to a significant extent - being embedded in a market, of course, they do participate in this superexploitation to some extent.

So how are they doing, economically? Not very well, I'm afraid. The reason cooperative-fetishists always mention Mondragon is that it's a fairly large, successful corporation. These coffee cooperatives are held together by political will and "fair trade" faddism.

Small-scale petit-bourgeois agriculture is grossly inefficient and would have been wiped out decades ago were it not for a backlash from radical liberals - the sort of people who think five-person farms are "progressive" while Monsanto is the Earthly incarnation of our lord Satan - and populists who rely on the peasant strata, particularly the well-off peasants.

You're moving the goalposts here. I was to debunk the claim that all cooperatives are super exploitative. I did. This talk of inefficiency and lack of economic soundness (which contradicts research on the subject, by the way) is completely irrelevant.



Notice that all of the cooperatives you mentioned by name are agricultural. Why are there no industrial cooperatives that do not participate in the superexploitation of Third World labor?


Er no, they aren't. Argentina's reclaimed factories are industrial in nature, and I believe the same is true of Venezuela.



Both mutualism and your "federation of cooperatives" would give individuals and small groups exclusive control over one segment of the means of production, both would rely on market mechanisms and federalism.

If the economy is being managed, how is it a market and not socially owned?


Nice idea in principle but how are you going to get from where we are today to the kind of economy managed by a federation of cooperatives that you espouse given the fact that capital is becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer hands?

Revolution.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I never said they would be market-based or loosely federated. It would be a socially-owned, centrally-planned economy built upon the cooperative structure.

Well that's disingenuous, since you explicitly called for a "federation of cooperatives". Furthermore, such a federation would clearly result in market mechanisms - if the members of a cooperative own the associated means of production, they own the commodities produced (and they are commodities - commodity production hasn't been superseded), and will exchange them for commodities produced by other cooperatives. Those who do not will find their property dwindling.

The principle remains the same if you replace "cooperatives" with "free producers", "revolutionary trade unions", "worker-managed enterprises" or "socialist states" - every arrangement that relies on exclusive control of a portion of the means of production being given to a limited group will result in a market.

Therefore, a "socially-owned, centrally-planned economy built upon the cooperative structure" is nonsense, like "socially-owned, centrally-planned economy built upon the signeural structure".

For any given economic unit, operating a particular segment of the means of production, they are either compelled to follow the plan decided at the central level, or they are not. If they are, we aren't talking about a cooperative. If they are not, social ownership is not in place. The subordination of the particular economic operations to the center, crucial for a socially-owned economy, is incompatible with cooperatives.


You're moving the goalposts here. I was to debunk the claim that all cooperatives are super exploitative. I did. This talk of inefficiency and lack of economic soundness (which contradicts research on the subject, by the way) is completely irrelevant.

You claimed that Mondragon was a "public institution" and that it represented a "change in paradigm". I pointed out that Mondragon could only grow by participating in the superexploitation of neo-colonial labor.

And the question of the economic soundness of a "federation of cooperatives" is very much relevant. An alternative that can't work is no alternative at all. I wonder what research you are talking about.


Er no, they aren't. Argentina's reclaimed factories are industrial in nature, and I believe the same is true of Venezuela.

Which is why I said "cooperatives you mentioned by name" - "Argentina's reclaimed factories" is so broad it's almost impossible to address. But bear in mind that "factory reclamation" is not a new thing - it goes back to Peron, I think. Yet all of these cooperatives ended up closing.

[Sabot Cat]

Well that's disingenuous, since you explicitly called for a "federation of cooperatives". Furthermore, such a federation would clearly result in market mechanisms - if the members of a cooperative own the associated means of production, they own the commodities produced (and they are commodities - commodity production hasn't been superseded), and will exchange them for commodities produced by other cooperatives. Those who do not will find their property dwindling.

The principle remains the same if you replace "cooperatives" with "free producers", "revolutionary trade unions", "worker-managed enterprises" or "socialist states" - every arrangement that relies on exclusive control of a portion of the means of production being given to a limited group will result in a market.

By your definition then, central planners and revolutionaries who have exclusive control of any certain group of assets would create a market. Unless you have an alternative that doesn't rely on revolutionary trade unions or cooperatives or central planners?



For any given economic unit, operating a particular segment of the means of production, they are either compelled to follow the plan decided at the central level, or they are not. If they are, we aren't talking about a cooperative. If they are not, social ownership is not in place. The subordination of the particular economic operations to the center, crucial for a socially-owned economy, is incompatible with cooperatives.

I don't believe that a top-level bureaucracy that directs the economy is synonymous with "social ownership" either, let alone "crucial" to it. Economic operations can be agreed upon at some upper-level with the cooperatives as willing participants in that process, but it is not a question of merely taking orders from the top.



You claimed that Mondragon was a "public institution" and that it represented a "change in paradigm". I pointed out that Mondragon could only grow by participating in the superexploitation of neo-colonial labor.


That was Motorvating, actually.


Which is why I said "cooperatives you mentioned by name" - "Argentina's reclaimed factories" is so broad it's almost impossible to address. But bear in mind that "factory reclamation" is not a new thing - it goes back to Peron, I think. Yet all of these cooperatives ended up closing.

That had more to do with Argentina's political turbulence during that period, not because of alleged unsoundness with the cooperative model. And it's not impossible to address them; they exist after all.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

By your definition then, central planners and revolutionaries who have exclusive control of any certain group of assets would create a market.

First of all, no socialist, not even the most die-hard "equality is shit, let's build an industrial autocracy" authors like Falkner-Smit or Rozengolts, ever suggested that central planners should have exclusive control over anything. In centrally-planned economies, planners are functionaries of the public authorities; they can be dismissed and overruled. In the Soviet Union, the planners ultimately answered to other layers of the bureaucracy. In socialism, they would answer to society in whole, whether directly or through some special organ.

Second, yes, if the proletarians of one region seize control of the means of production in that region, they will still be forced to participate in the world market - although, to be fair, they aren't "creating" a world market. If, after the global revolution, society were to divide itself into "socialist countries", the economic relations between them would be market relations.


I don't believe that a top-level bureaucracy that directs the economy is synonymous with "social ownership" either, let alone "crucial" to it.

Right, because being forced to follow a democratically-enacted plan instead of causing problems with petty individual rebellions is "top-down bureaucracy".


Economic operations can be agreed upon at some upper-level with the cooperatives as willing participants in that process, but it is not a question of merely taking orders from the top.

I have no idea what your notion of "willing participants" entails, but it does sound like market relations - the implication seems to be that if cooperatives don't want to participate in democratic decision-making, they wouldn't be forced to. This undermines the very concept of democracy.

And really, that's what it all comes down to. Let's imagine that a decision has been made at a central level. Can the "cooperatives" refuse to carry out this decision? If they can't, their members don't have ownership of the specific part of the MoP they use, and so they aren't cooperatives. If they can, then the "democratic" decision wasn't democratic at all, since everyone can undermine and block it.


"Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry" co-authored by Professor John Pencavel from the Department of Economics in Stanford University, suggests that employment is more stable in a co-op because pays are adjusted as opposed to the number of employees or their available hours.

First of all, that is not generally true - everyone's favorite Mondragon recently downsized. And second, that is not the sort of stability I was talking about.


"Research Evidence of Prevalence and Effects of Employee Ownership”, testimony of Dr. Douglas Kruse of Rutgers University before the U.S. House of Representatives, suggests that the status of a worker as an owner (even just partly) has corresponding gains in employment growth and stability with no losses in efficiency. This is without correlation to a specific amount of asset ownership, which could plausibly interpolated to mean that it would apply to cooperatives.

That is questionable - the report could have been talking about small employee stock-holding.


“The Viability of Employee-Owned Firms: Evidence from France” from volume 45 of the Industrial & Labor Relations Review suggests that worker co-ops have higher rates of survival compared to other firms, with no corresponding losses in productivity or profitability over a ten year observation period.

Now this looks promising. I'll try to dig the article up.


That had more to do with Argentina's political turbulence during that period, not because of alleged unsoundness with the cooperative model.

But if this were the case, large-scale business would have been wiped out as well.


And it's not impossible to address them; they exist after all.

The problem is that the term covers a variety of enterprises, with different structure, function etc. etc.

[reb]

A co-operative commonwealth is still capitalism. Co-operatives work just fine under capitalism as it already stands. Wolff is a hack, a pseudo-socialist for liberals.

[reb]

I think there's a significant difference between capitalists owning means of production and workers owning means of production, even if it's on a comparatively small scale. What makes the difference is that workers, at least in that organization, actually have a say in what happens if it's a cooperative.

One version is regular capitalism and one is a nicer version of capitalism?


Yes, I agree that we can't just "cooperativize" our way out out of capitalism. And one cooperative does not create a workers' means of production, but then again, one socialist organization doesn't make a socialist society either. And if the entire economy were to be managed by a federation of cooperatives (which is what is proposed here), and if each worker has a vote in the decisions of their organization, I'm not sure what objections one could have with the ownership of the means of production. How can you call a society, if it lacks stock owners, bankers, corporate executives, board members and overlord-planners, or anyone who fulfills those roles in relation to the proletariat, capitalist?

You can call it capitalist because society is still alienated from itself, value production still exists, commodity production stille exists and also presumably wage labor and money. You also agree that you can't end capitalism just by doing this. So what do you propose? A revolution against the worker owned cooperatives?


Well, I'd say there's a distinction, though. IT would be based on free enterprise, but effectively makes the capitalist themselves obsolete. It's based in free enterprise, but it's still a large enough paradigm shift to be something to consider, especially since it would likely be easier to set and maintain such a system. And there's cases even in real co-operatives where the collectively owned private entity becomes essentially a public institution of the community. Mondragon seems to be a good example. I think when the very idea of what is private becomes altered, and thus the public private distinction becomes blurred, I think problems with private property are lessened.

Well, and about the the stockholders. You're making a false equivalent. That's an oligarchy. That's what the bourgeois IS: A small group controlling the whole. I'm talking about a direct, or in the case of union co-operative models a representative democracy.

But thank you for mentioning Michel Pablo.

It's this sort of moralizing that is the problem here. It totally ignores how capital actually functions and whether or not we could achieve this state of affairs or even if these state of affairs are capitalist or not. You even admit it as such when you say that you think that the "problems of private property are lessened". The point of fact is that cooperatives are private property. They produce commodities. They are in turn conditioned by the global market.