Idea: For-profit direct-democratic libertarian-socialist organization/corporation

[S.O.I]

I've been speculating on this for a while: If you cant change the system from the outside, you can try changing it from the inside, by infiltrating the capitalist system with revolutionary leftist ideology.

Consider this: A for-profit organization (or corporation as it could also be classified as), based strictly on common ownership, social democratic economy and desentralized, progressive and horizontal direct-democratic descision-making.

How would this work? How would this system look like? How could this be done? Which industries would be best suited for something like this? I've was thinking in the lines of shipping or something internet based, but there are many other possibilities in areas i propably dont have too much experiance... I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Say that three times fast.


Consider this: A for-profit organization (or corporation as it could also be classified as), based strictly on common ownership, social democratic economy and desentralized, progressive and horizontal direct-democratic descision-making.Corporations are usually owned by shareholders who flex their power through monetary investment. Under most jurisdictions they enjoy personhood status.

What's the difference between your "for-profit direct-democratic libertarian-socialist organization" and cooperatives?

[bobroberts]

It sounds like you are talking about a co-op, although from what I've seen, co-ops generally only want to survive and eek out a niche, and not all that interested in expanding and directly challenging the dominance of corporations. I've been thinking about similar ideas, and I would start in the small restaraunt / fast food industry because it is the most exploitative, it seems like it would have lower startup costs, and finally most fast food places are complete shit. There is also a restaraunt and some kind of shitty chain in EVERY town in the US.

Here's what I was thinking:
I would start with a standard wage, and then split all net profits between the workers, or split them 50/50 between the workers and whoever initially funds the startup, or something simliar to that. Funding could potentially come from the community, let members of the community buy a share for however much money, then repay them as the business is successful. Some stores have been set up this way in small towns where it is unfeasable for the corporate giants to open up shop. In a low skill job like the ones found in the restaraunt industry, it would be relatively easy to train workers to do almost everything so that everyone knows how to run the store and would know how to understand the books. They could then democratically decide who should do what, if there should be any fixed positions, and how much those positions should pay. I would hook up with as many local suppliers as possible, and then sell the basic food items (rice, flour, beans, vegetables, etc) at cost to the employees and their families, or even those in need in the community, to help suppliment wages. There are quite a few farming co-ops around the country and they could be natural allies.

I would not focus on any one type of cuisine, instead letting the workers decide based on what is local and available. I would only focus on ensuring the workplace is democratic, the food quality is high, and ensuring that certain standards are met. It would basically signal to people that the workers are treated fairly, the food is high quality and handled safely, and no disgruntled idiot will tamper with your food. If successful, you could conceivably convince small time mom-and-pop shops to adopt your business model, while maintaining their independence and control over what food they serve (so long as it's not subpar shit). Basically, a co-op alliance of sorts.

Anyway, those are just some ideas I've been kicking around.

[Iron]

I've been speculating on this for a while: If you cant change the system from the outside, you can try changing it from the inside, by infiltrating the capitalist system with revolutionary leftist ideology.
The problem with working within the system is that its not the system that changes, the system changes you, to quote immortal technique

and also it seems your imply we cannot over throw capitalism

[rouchambeau]

So, collectivize capitalism?

[Comrade Krell]

That is a disgusting class collaborator viewpoint which requires no further thinking. The whole 'we can change capitalist peacefully with reform from within' is the start of revisionism and reformism which ultimately betrays the interests of organized labor.

[Luís Henrique]

I've been speculating on this for a while: If you cant change the system from the outside, you can try changing it from the inside, by infiltrating the capitalist system with revolutionary leftist ideology.

Consider this: A for-profit organization (or corporation as it could also be classified as), based strictly on common ownership, social democratic economy and desentralized, progressive and horizontal direct-democratic descision-making.

The immediate problem is, how can it be based on common ownership, if the system only allows for private ownership? If the workers at such firm are the owners of it, they will still be its owners, even if they stop working. And how would new admissions be handled? Would the new workers have to buy a share of the company? Evidently, the only possibility to solve such problem would be to set up an association which would own the company. But then this association would no longer be a collective of the workers, but, instead, an abstract capitalist, which would, in order to compete with other capitalists, have to be as ruthless to its workers as any other. Given the constraints of a capitalist economy, democracy in the workplace is counterproductive, as it reduces labour intensity.

The deepest problem, however, is that capitalist ideology is spread by the very material relationships between economic agents. The act of buying and selling, of reducing everything to a commodity, is the kernel of capitalist ideology's reproduction. So such "collective corporation" would, in the long term, rather reinforce bourgeois ideology than spread revolutionary socialism.

Luís Henrique

[Led Zeppelin]

It's not a "new idea" and it's not unique, read Chernyshevsky's 1863 novel What Is To Be Done? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_%28novel%29)

[lombas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative ?

[bobroberts]

The problem with working within the system is that its not the system that changes, the system changes you, to quote immortal technique

and also it seems your imply we cannot over throw capitalism

Aren't we part of the system, even if unwillingly, already? If the system can only be abolished by violent revolutionary action, no one will join that cause unless peaceful means are exhausted and people are violently repressed by the state. If we can provoke and agitate against capitalist forces from within their own system, I think we should do so. In the US, the left is in such a disempowered position I don't think we can be picky about which approach to take.

[hekmatista]

There were a lot of experiments along those lines from Brook Farm and other utopian communities right up to the worker owned cooperative I was part of in Oregon during the 1970's (Hoedads Reforestation) and current left publishing ventures, etc. While I'd never knock the advantages of a less alienated form of work, my impression is that worker coops, as islands within a capitalist sea, usually only survive in the market through pretty severe self-exploitation. As for challenging the overall system, they'd have to achieve a scale that the coop movement has never reached in the USA.