Worker Cooperative Competition

[Servia]

What would be a system where worker cooperatives compete against each other in a market?

[Comrade #138672]

Capitalism.

[Servia]

Is there a name for this kind of capitalism? and what are opinions on it?

[Q]

Is there a name for this kind of capitalism? and what are opinions on it?
It is quite simply capitalism if the main objective would be to create a surplus value by creating commodities that are to be sold on a market, which is what you state.

In the Netherlands (and I imagine in many other countries) the "cooperative" is a certain form of company, closely related to a voluntary association, but juridically more capable for business needs.

So, there is nothing "special" about this.

[Creative Destruction]

Is there a name for this kind of capitalism? and what are opinions on it?

it's also called market "socialism."

[Blake's Baby]

No, it's just capitalism. No special name.

My opinion is that workers managing their own exploitation is hardly a step up from workers not managing their exploitation, though I can see that in some circumstances for some individual workers it might provide a better social safety net.

However, research from the UK shows that co-ops actually have worse rates of exploitation than conventional small businesses - in a 'normal' small business, the employees work for 40 hours and go home at the end of the day because they don't care about the company, while the boss/owner works for 90 hours, and takes a bigger pay-cheque in compensation; in a co-op, because 'everyone's the boss', the majority of the workforce tends to work massively long hours, beyond what they're paid to do. Thus, co-op workers may be being paid the same (or slightly better) than employees working 40 hours, but are actually working 60-80 hours, up to half of it unpaid, which means that overall they're being paid less per hour worked.

[QueerVanguard]

It's what Proudhon called "Anarchism" and Richard Wolff calls "Communism", but what us Marxists call Capitalism. It's also utopian hogshit, but that's neither here nor there.

[David Warner]

The main question is -- these workers cooperatives, etc. exist under what kind of system? The dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

[Q]

The main question is -- these workers cooperatives, etc. exist under what kind of system? The dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
And this question was already answered a few times: Cooperatives exists today, have even a specific judicial status in quite a few countries as a kind of company. And since we today live in the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", the answer should again be clear.

I don't think people are focusing on the right part when we're discussing cooperatives: The point is not so much that they're democratic, but that they work within the logic of the market. That is, they produce to create a surplus which is realised on the market, like any other company. And, as Blake's Baby already pointed out, exploitation under these circumstances tend to be worse.

Does that completely rule out cooperatives? No. But they have to work in a different context. If one would have a party-movement of millions of people Europe-wide, where cooperatives work more as collectives, start to plan on a social scale, based on human needs... then yes, cooperatives might be very useful devices to educate the worker class, to prepare it for its political hegemony, its "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[David Warner]

If we're talking only about cooperatives which exist under capitalism then it's a bit silly to ask "what system would they.." The question answers itself. :)

I thought the OP was asking about cooperatives in general.

[Sabot Cat]

I thought the OP was discussing the possibility of an economy that consists only of worker cooperatives, which interact with one another in a market.

[Zukunftsmusik]

However, research from the UK shows that co-ops actually have worse rates of exploitation than conventional small businesses - in a 'normal' small business, the employees work for 40 hours and go home at the end of the day because they don't care about the company, while the boss/owner works for 90 hours, and takes a bigger pay-cheque in compensation; in a co-op, because 'everyone's the boss', the majority of the workforce tends to work massively long hours, beyond what they're paid to do. Thus, co-op workers may be being paid the same (or slightly better) than employees working 40 hours, but are actually working 60-80 hours, up to half of it unpaid, which means that overall they're being paid less per hour worked.

This is a very important point, and needs to be stressed because it is often overlooked. Furthermore, coops are often an abortive means of survival during times of crisis, as in Argentine in the 90s (or was it the 00s), or over the later years in many parts of the world - in other words, as the workers take over unprofitable companies, they work harder (and are thus exploited more) in order to save their business.


I thought the OP was discussing the possibility of an economy that consists only of worker cooperatives, which interact with one another in a market.

Apart from such a scenario being completely utopian - what difference does it make?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I thought the OP was discussing the possibility of an economy that consists only of worker cooperatives, which interact with one another in a market.

Which is still called "capitalism".

An impossible capitalism but capitalism still.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why is it impossible? I don't consider it likely at all but I've never really thoroughly considered the arguments of its possibility.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why is it impossible? I don't consider it likely at all but I've never really thoroughly considered the arguments of its possibility.

Well, consider this: by supposition, there would be no proletariat at first. Each co-operative would be run by the people who work there, which means they would set the rate of profit themselves.

Now, the general law is that a high rate of profit compared to other branches attracts investment. Which means that if the members of the cooperative voted to bleed themselves dry, they would attract investment from other cooperatives, allowing them higher profit (and individual dividends in the future).

Those cooperatives that do not maintain a high rate of profit would end up ejected from the market. Where would their former members go? At this point they probably have little money, so they can't just start a new cooperative, unless they've figured out how to not eat for a few years. The only recourse they have is to sell their labour-power - so we're back in "regular" capitalism.

[Sewer Socialist]

Why is it impossible? I don't consider it likely at all but I've never really thoroughly considered the arguments of its possibility.

When I've thought about it, I have been unable to understand how it would not immediately begin to degenerate into the capitalism we know today, and no proponents of "market socialism" have been able to explain why this wouldn't happen. Assuming a market system of co-operative enterprises, where workers divide up the income only amongst the workers at those firms, competing firms will experience varying levels of financial success, their incomes will also vary. Some successful firms will be far more wealthy than others. These successful firms might further their success by outsourcing some of their work to a firm for what ends up being less than they might pay an co-owner at their own firm, and others might have to hire the services of a costly firm, diminishing their own profits.

These differences in wealth will accumulate, and class divisions will grow, until people with wealth are hiring others to do most of the work and doing very little themselves, and those with the highly concentrated wealth effectively run the society amongst themselves, using those with little wealth to further their own means of acquiring capital.

As someone who was once an independant contractor, hiring myself out for contracts was not any less exploitative whatsoever, and my bosses were no less existant.

[cyu]

Kind of like asking what it would be like if militaries were no longer run as dictatorships, with a top-down chain of command, but rather democratic organizations, but all the armies of the world were still trying to kill each other. While life may be a bit better within each military structure, the fact that the people of the world are still trying to kill each other would not be an ideal situation.

Economic competition is similar to military warfare - in that large organizations compete to destory one another, with the members of organizations suffering if they lose.

I would still say it boils down to a mis-interpretation of Darwinian evolution - that people must compete if society is to improve. I'd say the future (if there is going to be a future) of humanity lies in advancement through cooperation - sure ideas and products may be thrown out or eliminated through competition, but if you force human beings to compete rather than cooperate, the result is an entire range of societal ills, from war to murder.