Co-ops

[Zukunftsmusik]

Basically I'm looking for material on co-ops, not of the kind of material that fetishises it, but analyses it on more "cold" terms. In what conditions have they come about? What possibilities do they pose and what limits do they have?

Now, there are obvious problems with co-ops, first and foremost that they are capitalist enterprises. They still produce for markets, the workers work for wages (however "democratically decided"), and so on (obviously). I've also read that they're first and foremost a direct reaction to crises, which was the case in Argentine in the early '00s, as far as I've understood. This means exploitation in fact is higher under workers control/ownership.

There seems to be a whole lot of mystification of co-ops as "alternatives to capitalism" and so on. On the other hand: are they, or can they, still be a form of stepping stone towards communism? The relationship boss/worker is put to an end and the workers face capital more directly, as it were.

[ProletariatPower]

I think Co-ops could be a good stepping stone into developing a Socialist society. However, ultimately I'd rather the power rest directly into the unions themselves. I think co-ops are much more preferable to Capitalist corporations though and do a little to support my local co-op shop. It is notable of course that in Britain these co-ops have now become "corrupted" and have been functioning more and more under a direct administration of bourgeoisie with the passage of time.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I guess "stepping stone" was the wrong formulation, at least for what I'm asking, as it implies co-ops somehow are better than other forms of enterprise or "closer" to socialism, if such a thing were possible. I'm asking in a more "objective" manner: in what way do co-ops face capital and what conclusions can be drawn from this? I'm not in any way talking about co-ops as a morally superior form of enterprise or anything like the user above, just to be clear.

[Alexios]

prole.info might have some items of interest

[Die Neue Zeit]

I guess "stepping stone" was the wrong formulation, at least for what I'm asking, as it implies co-ops somehow are better than other forms of enterprise or "closer" to socialism, if such a thing were possible. I'm asking in a more "objective" manner: in what way do co-ops face capital and what conclusions can be drawn from this? I'm not in any way talking about co-ops as a morally superior form of enterprise or anything like the user above, just to be clear.

No way and many ways would be the answer. For me, it depends on how they went through the business startup phase.

A couple of Marxists online think that "self-help" is the route for co-ops, but I think startup "state aid" of the Blanc-Lassalle kind is the better route, not to mention the far more political route. Bakunin even wrote that such co-op equivalent of corporate welfare is a good way to kill "free markets," facing off the "free market" segments of capital.

[Remus Bleys]

Well, it would depend on the overall context of the situation
For instance
Socialism is, above all, the abolition of relations of exchange founded on value, and the destruction of their fundamental components: capital, wages and money. These categories the kolkhos guarantees through the transformation of the small rural producers, whose social position it crystallises, partly thanks to remuneration in money (or in negotiable products) for their work on a co-operative farm and partly through allowing for the individual exploitation of plots of privately owned land and cattle, the produce of which can be sold on the open market. Far from being a kind of «Socialism», the Kolkhos is akin to the «self-management» systems which exist in certain of the newly independent underdeveloped countries; there, by usurping terminology in just the same way as their Russian forbears, such systems serve to conceal their role as historical stopgap between the archaic natural production preceding capitalism and the latter's full development. Source (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html)
On the other hand, Marx noted in Capital (Vol. 3) that the Joint-Stock company and the worker's co-operative alike contained within it the inherent abolition of capitalism. Likewise, it can be seen that capitalism does not totally dominate every single aspect of everything (not yet at least) and so it still has some leftovers from previous modes of production - but it also has some form of proto-socialistic things - the firefighters is one of them, and Lenin noted in State and Revolution that the Postal Service is one of them. None of this is to say of course that these things represent the sign of capitalism transitioning into socialism, which is how the Bernsteins and the liberals and the reformists would all interpret this. Lenin noted that these forms first needed to be seized by the dictatorship of the proletariat and then rationally managed by the "scientific administration of things" after the state withers away - in the meantime, these things all serve the interests of Capital. So thats why it is an "inherent" abolition of capitalism. It still has to be seized (and most likely restructured, as worker ownership =/= socialism; also the forgotten fact that the "inherent abolition of capitalism" the co-op contains is also inherent in the Joint-Stock Company). Trying to establish socialism via the Joint-Stock or the Worker Co-operative is absurd, considering that even if the participants were really attempting to do so, the global network of capital (for instance, trade) would quickly squash the attempt and subordinate it to the interests of Capital (see this text (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/seize-power.htm)) - the necessity of violent insurrection and totalitarian dictatorship, in order to destroy the global system of capitalism, is just as valid in regards to the worker-coops and Stock Companies as it is in regards to other forms that capitalism may take.
Capitalism has always been the prefiguration of Communism, and could it really be any other way? Communism is born from Capitalism.

Of course, not to say that the worker co-ops are a "new type of capitalism." There is still wage labor, there is still money, there is still the exploitation and the waste of the product. It is still fundamentally the same.

See this, http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/ch07.htm specifically the Section "iii. Imperialism and formal domination of communism"



No way and many ways would be the answer. For me, it depends on how they went through the business startup phase.
Good to know that you think what you "want" in regards to the forms class struggle takes is important. Here I was thinking that it organically formed, based on both formations of the past and the circumstances of the present, but apparently, you can just will these things into existence.

A couple of Marxists online think that "self-help" is the route for co-ops, but I think startup "state aid" of the Blanc-Lassalle kind is the better route, not to mention the far more political route. Bakunin even wrote that such co-op equivalent of corporate welfare is a good way to kill "free markets," facing off the "free market" segments of capital.
Lassalle, Bakunin, what does this have to do with Marxism?

[exeexe]

Now, there are obvious problems with co-ops, first and foremost that they are capitalist enterprises

One of the limits of cooperatives is that a cooperative can not be capitalist in nature since there is no capitalist property owner.
In a capitalist enterprices the private property owners has the political power while in a cooperative the political power is distributed out to everyone who works there in a democratic fashion. In a capitalist enterprise the workers are ruled by capital while in a cooperative the workers rule over capital.

[Tower of Bebel]

"Boffy (http://boffyblog.blogspot.be/2010/10/co-operatives-index.html)" has a blog full of posts on co-ops as steppingstone

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good to know that you think what you "want" in regards to the forms class struggle takes is important. Here I was thinking that it organically formed, based on both formations of the past and the circumstances of the present, but apparently, you can just will these things into existence.

Lassalle, Bakunin, what does this have to do with Marxism?

It's not an opinion. It's an emphasis. I should also add another factor, while I'm at this: the line of business of the co-op.

As for your question, it's about maximizing the political value of the co-op business model.

[Zukunftsmusik]

One of the limits of cooperatives is that a cooperative can not be capitalist in nature since there is no capitalist property owner.
In a capitalist enterprices the private property owners has the political power while in a cooperative the political power is distributed out to everyone who works there in a democratic fashion. In a capitalist enterprise the workers are ruled by capital while in a cooperative the workers rule over capital.

Socialism in one factory, eh? This is exactly the "fetishisation" I was talking about. You're guilty of the same faulty analysis some anarchists I know, i.e. to see the capitalist enterprise simply as a question of who owns the means of production and not the "nature" of production. A co-op hasn't abolished capital (how could it?) as there is more to take into account here than who owns the means of production (besides, this has always been a question of ownership by society as a whole, not the workers in single, separate factories): a co-op still produces commodities for exchange, the workers still work for a wage (however democratically decided) - in other words, surplus labour is still being extracted and we have capital. What is changed is the constellation of one (or some) capital(s), and it's the result and conclusion of this change I'm asking about.

[exeexe]

A co-op hasn't abolished capital You shouldn't abolish capital in the first place. You should liberate yourself from capital and be free workers. Capital can also mean the means of production. So to abolish capital is to get rid of the means of production. That is, people should starve and die because there will be no adequate production. And we have all seen what happens when such ideologies gets into power in the 1920ies up until 1990ies. People dies and no one is to blame because they just died from starvation right?


Socialism in one factorySocialism in whatever factory the workers wants to get organized

[Zukunftsmusik]

You shouldn't abolish capital in the first place. You should liberate yourself from capital and be free workers. Capital can also mean the means of production. So to abolish capital is to get rid of the means of production. That is, people should starve and die because there will be no adequate production. And we have all seen what happens when such ideologies gets into power in the 1920ies up until 1990ies. People dies and no one is to blame because they just died from starvation right?

Socialism in whatever factory the workers wants to get organized

This, frankly, is incredibly stupid. Apparently you don't know what capital is, nor what socialism is. Anyway, this wasn't exactly the debate I was interested in, especially not if this counter-argument is all you can muster.

[PhoenixAsh]

You shouldn't abolish capital in the first place. You should liberate yourself from capital and be free workers. Capital can also mean the means of production. So to abolish capital is to get rid of the means of production. That is, people should starve and die because there will be no adequate production. And we have all seen what happens when such ideologies gets into power in the 1920ies up until 1990ies. People dies and no one is to blame because they just died from starvation right?

Socialism in whatever factory the workers wants to get organized

what?

The problem with the October revolution was that it didn't abolish capitalist production modes or even relationship to the means of production or even the wage system but attempted to bring it under state control.

Starvation was not a result of the abolition of capitalism at all. Starvation was a direct result of a combination of factors ranging from policy, civil war, disappropriation, disenfranchisement, active counter revolution or opposition by the peasants and a system of privileges etc. But not the lack of capitalism or markets....and not as a direct result of socialism/communism....Neither of which existed at that time.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also....at no time were capital or markets abandoned in the entire history of the USSR.

[exeexe]

You should abolish capitalism, but you shouldnt abolish capital, since capital takes the form of stuff that we need to survive.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/customavatars/avatar32975_5.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=32975) PhoenixAsh (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=32975)

Also....at no time were capital or markets abandoned in the entire history of the USSR.

Yes markets where abolished when the state collectivased the products from the farmers and stole all the food from the farmers and so they had to starve and die.

edit: Also they forced people to work and if they didnt work they could go to Gulag and work there. How is that not an abolishment of the market? /end of edit

Zukunftsmusik (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=38074)

Apparently you don't know what capital isI think its you who dont know what capital is

[0zgurluk]

I think Co-ops could be a good stepping stone into developing a Socialist society. However, ultimately I'd rather the power rest directly into the unions themselves. I think co-ops are much more preferable to Capitalist corporations though and do a little to support my local co-op shop. It is notable of course that in Britain these co-ops have now become "corrupted" and have been functioning more and more under a direct administration of bourgeoisie with the passage of time.

[motion denied]

I think co-ops are much more preferable to Capitalist corporations

Co-ops are capitalist.

EDIT: Zukunftsmusik already said it all, really.

[exeexe]

Co-ops are capitalist.

EDIT: Zukunftsmusik already said it all, really.

The focus of the gathering was to examine economic alternatives to capitalism, particularly co-ops.
Jackson Rising: New Economies Conference Highlights Cooperatives as Alternative Economic Model


0RlPfgzIHto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RlPfgzIHto

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You should abolish capitalism, but you shouldnt abolish capital, since capital takes the form of stuff that we need to survive.

No, this is wrong. Capital is not equivalent to the means of production. Capital is a social relation inherent in the means of production under capitalist society where those that own the means of production exploit the labor of those working the means of production. Capital must be abolished if you want to abolish private property, alienated labor, class relations, etc.


Yes markets where abolished when the state collectivased the products from the farmers and stole all the food from the farmers and so they had to starve and die.

Markets were not abolished when the state took possession of the means of production. Consumers traded their labor-time for goods through the medium of money. As for the peasants, this proves that a market still existed. Stalin wanted to exploit the peasantry enough to accumulate enough capital for his rapid industrialization plan.


edit: Also they forced people to work and if they didnt work they could go to Gulag and work there. How is that not an abolishment of the market? /end of edit

How exactly do you reckon it is an abolition of the market?

[exeexe]

No, this is wrong. Capital is not equivalent to the means of production.

Capital is amongst other things everything that has been worked on so it can be put to good use, like a hammer or a machine or a robot.



As for the peasants, this proves that a market still existed. Stalin wanted to exploit the peasantry enough to accumulate enough capital for his rapid industrialization plan.

If markets had existed the farmers would had named a price for the food the state took but they got nothing. You really think farmers collectively choose to suffer from mass starvation to the point of a slow death just from their own pure will? Just out of nowhere?

So it just proved that markets were abolished


How exactly do you reckon it is an abolition of the market?
If there were a market, the workers could have said no to working. And the employer would then had to name a higher price in order for the workers to work. But under forced labour there is no market because you cant say no to working.

[PhoenixAsh]

capital is everything that can be used in production. thus includes stones and wood for example but also grass

[motion denied]

You're falling for the fallacies of bourgeois economics.

Means of production only become capital in certain conditions.


Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labour, and raw materials, not only as material products; it consists just as much of exchange values. All products of which it consists are commodities. Capital, consequently, is not only a sum of material products, it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes. Capital remains the same whether we put cotton in the place of wool, rice in the place of wheat, steamships in the place of railroads, provided only that the cotton, the rice, the steamships – the body of capital – have the same exchange value, the same price, as the wool, the wheat, the railroads, in which it was previously embodied. The bodily form of capital may transform itself continually, while capital does not suffer the least alteration.

[...]

Capital does not consist in the fact that accumulated labour serves living labour as a means for new production. It consists in the fact that living labour serves accumulated labour as the means of preserving and multiplying its exchange value.

And


The means of production on the one hand, labour-power on the other, are merely the different modes of existence which the value of the original capital assumed when from being money it was transformed into the various factors of the labour-process. That part of capital then, which is represented by the means of production, by the raw material, auxiliary material and the instruments of labour does not, in the process of production, undergo any quantitative alteration of value. I therefore call it the constant part of capital, or, more shortly, constant capital.

[Per Levy]

If there were a market, the workers could have said no to working. And the employer would then had to name a higher price in order for the workers to work. But under forced labour there is no market because you cant say no to working.

so there are no markets today then? cause if a worker says no to a job, the employer will seek just another prole, who work for the low wage, wich they will find. while the worker who said no can, if they dont find a job and there is no wellfarestate, starve to death. so no markets in capitalism then?

[synthesis]

You shouldn't abolish capital in the first place. You should liberate yourself from capital and be free workers. Capital can also mean the means of production. So to abolish capital is to get rid of the means of production. That is, people should starve and die because there will be no adequate production. And we have all seen what happens when such ideologies gets into power in the 1920ies up until 1990ies. People dies and no one is to blame because they just died from starvation right?

Socialism in whatever factory the workers wants to get organized

"abolish the means of production," lol

[exeexe]

Arbeitskraft (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=102128):
Yeah if capital is constant then you cant abolish it. It is simply just an impossibility under Marxist logic.

Also your quotes didnt contradict anything that i have been saying about capital.

Per Levy:
Thats up for interpretation. If you think we have slave labour and not wage labour, then yes, you could say that we dont have a market where producers (workers) and consumers (capitalists) exchange goods freely on a price dictated by supply and demand. So instead the price is dictated by demand and desperation.

[motion denied]

Yeah if capital is constant then you cant abolish it. It is simply just an impossibility under Marxist logic.

Also your quotes didnt contradict anything that i have been saying about capital.

Of course you can - abolishing value. How will value valorize itself if it is not produced in the first place?

On the contrary, it goes against everything you have said.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am not aware of any revolutionary movement that argue the abolition of capital in this sense.

I am not entirely sure but am almost positive exeexe doesn't actually know what capital means in the revolutionary sense and is unaware that it is actually monetary capital we are referring to.

That said...given the fact that capital used in the sense exeexe uses it is for all intents an purposes unabolishable unless you completely destroy everything which could possibly be used to produce something...I am not entirely sure why we are even having this discussion.

[exeexe]

We are having this discussion because zukunftmusic said:

A co-op hasn't abolished capital (how could it?) As if that is a goal in the first place.
And i try to explain that abolishing capital is not a goal

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Capital is amongst other things everything that has been worked on so it can be put to good use, like a hammer or a machine or a robot.

Not in the revolutionary leftist sense.


If markets had existed the farmers would had named a price for the food the state took but they got nothing.

This isn't true. The state controlled the price of grain, but did not simply take the peasants grain like the requisitioning of the civil war. The state kept grain prices low enough to efficiently exploit the labor of the peasants to accumulate enough capital for industrialization. The peasants, workers, etc. bought commodities for their labor-time represented in the universal equivalent of money. Even in a market system, the farmer doesn't "name" a price but a price is determined through the conflict of supply and demand and the need to turn a profit or at least break even and reproduce capitalist relations. In the Soviet Union, the state managed the price of grain in a way to accumulate capital in one sector of the market while not considering the reproduction of capital's relations in another sector of the market but this doesn't mean the market was non-existent.


You really think farmers collectively choose to suffer from mass starvation to the point of a slow death just from their own pure will? Just out of nowhere?


Um no


So it just proved that markets were abolished

Nope, it did not. Shelia Fitzpatrick notes in her famous book on the Russian Revolution that during the Stalinist years managers of enterprises were more likely to be "wheeling-and-dealing" entrepreneurial types willing to cut corners to make a profit. The planned economy of the Soviet Union was not a socialist planning but a system of planned profit. The accumulation of capital was directed towards certain sectors of the economy, yet within the market system.


If there were a market, the workers could have said no to working. And the employer would then had to name a higher price in order for the workers to work. But under forced labour there is no market because you cant say no to working.

The option in the market system is to work or starve. Workers can't say no to working under a market either.

[PhoenixAsh]

We are having this discussion because zukunftmusic said:
As if that is a goal in the first place.
And i try to explain that abolishing capital is not a goal

Abolishing capital is most definately a revolutionary goal.

What is meant however is a hugely different definition of capital than the general "everything that can be produced or implemented in economic activity". This definition has been layed out for more than a century now and within revolutionary context, and btw usually outside it too, captal is understood broadly in the definition of financial capital.

[L.A.P.]

Right....... so as to the OP's request



This is a good critique of co-ops and worker's self-management: https://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation