Workers Cooperatives :Good or Bad?

[AnthArmo]

After reading an article by "Comrade Alstair" on Workers Cooperatives, I just wanted a clear consensus on all your opinions on Workers Control and self management.

Would you support Worker Cooperatives in a communist society, were they are legitimately the way forward for workers to enjoy their own fruits of their labor. Or are they merely worker controlled capitalism

My take on this is that it's stupid to Nationalize everything, this just leads to a Totalitarian society. It would make more sense to give some industries and businesses, like the news and media, up to workers control.

[rouchambeau]

Would you support Worker Cooperatives in a communist society, were they are legitimately the way forward for workers to enjoy their own fruits of their labor. Or are they merely worker controlled capitalism

If the workers are in a communist society, then there could never be such a thing as "worker controlled capitalism".

[Vendetta]

I don't get how cooperatives and the like could be a bad thing at all.

[spartan]

They are a good short term measure in a capitalist society and give the workers a taste of workplace democracy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They're good. In fact, they can be very good. They foster cooperation and consciousness.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why haven't minimum demands been raised pertaining to these, then? :(

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng89.html#anchor650664

* And no, I don't support the notion of workers' cooperatives being "socialistic" *

[spice756]

After reading an article by "Comrade Alstair" on Workers Cooperatives, I just wanted a clear consensus on all your opinions on Workers Control and self management.

Would you support Worker Cooperatives in a communist society, were they are legitimately the way forward for workers to enjoy their own fruits of their labor. Or are they merely worker controlled capitalism

My take on this is that it's stupid to Nationalize everything, this just leads to a Totalitarian society. It would make more sense to give some industries and businesses, like the news and media, up to workers control.

What do you meen by Workers Cooperatives? I thought in a communist society every thing is owned by all members or workers and work together collectively?

[Herman]

Worker Cooperatives have control of their own enterprise, which is good. It would be even better if workers had control of all the industry.

[apathy maybe]

One of the reasons we object to capitalism is the exploitation of the workers by the bosses.

If there are no bosses, but only workers, then who are we to complain?

At present, the notion of worker owned and run cooperatives is a very good thing, and a step towards a society without capitalism at all.

[Devrim]

Worker co-operatives are something that could not exist in communism, and as they exist today are just another form of capitalism.


At present, the notion of worker owned and run cooperatives is a very good thing, and a step towards a society without capitalism at all.

If you can't have socialism in one country, how can you have it in one company?

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

Worker co-operatives are something that could not exist in communism, and as they exist today are just another form of capitalism.



If you can't have socialism in one country, how can you have it in one company?

Devrim

You can have "socialism" in one country, for a given definition of socialism. And equally, you can have "socialism" in one "company" for another definition.

My point, however, is not that it is socialism in one company, but that it is better (at least for the workers), then a situation of bosses and workers.

[Vendetta]

Worker co-operatives are something that could not exist in communism, and as they exist today are just another form of capitalism.

What? Why not?

[Devrim]

You can have "socialism" in one country, for a given definition of socialism. And equally, you can have "socialism" in one "company" for another definition.

My point, however, is not that it is socialism in one company, but that it is better (at least for the workers), then a situation of bosses and workers.

It would be a very different form of socialism from what I understand by the word.

However, on the main point, most worker co-ops end up with exactly the bosses and workers situation.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What? Why not?

Because a communist economy would be very different from a capitalist one.

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

It would be a very different form of socialism from what I understand by the word.

However, on the main point, most worker co-ops end up with exactly the bosses and workers situation.

Devrim

I trust you, mainly because of your greater experience. However, it does run counter to how I would imagine these from working. Can you provide examples of boss positions coming into existence in worker cooperatives, and how this positions came into existence?

Maybe it would be possible to learn from these experiences and not repeat the same mistakes.

[Devrim]

I trust you, mainly because of your greater experience. However, it does run counter to how I would imagine these from working. Can you provide examples of boss positions coming into existence in worker cooperatives, and how this positions came into existence?


Mondragon could be a good example. Here is the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation
And here is an article by anarchists in Poland talking about the worker's conditions: http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008

Kibutzim in Israel would be another good example.

It is a general tendency though, which goes far beyond these two cases.


Maybe it would be possible to learn from these experiences and not repeat the same mistakes.

The economy is capitalist. You can not run a tiny sector of it in a non capitalist way.

Devrim

[Herman]

Mondragon could be a good example. Here is the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation)
And here is an article by anarchists in Poland talking about the worker's conditions: http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondra...oland-20072008 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008)

The problem of Mondragon is the so called "professionalization", where "new" (more authoritarian) management techniques are employed. This has been happening in Mondragon since the 80's, going through the 90's up until today. The problem with cooperatives is that if they are succesful, they usually expand to other countries, and act like multinational capitalist corporations do, especially with the new management culture that is arising nowadays.

The original founding ideas are disappearing quickly, and less workers are interested in cooperativism. The new "business culture" is destroying Mondragon workplace democracy.

[Lamanov]

Cooperatives are certainly not models for a revolutionary society.

But it's possible to support them as temporary activity of the working class within capitalsm; for example, when one workplace is taken over by workers who want to run it, instead of foreclosure and mass loss of jobs.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Post-capitalism I don't think many will exist, but they're certainly not a "threat."

[The Author]

I would have voted "cooperatives are progressive, but not the final result to communism" option if there was one.

Like others said, cooperatives are progressive in that they are examples of the social organization of the means of production. But within capitalism, simply taking over the workplace and competing with corporate firms only means that the worker-owned enterprise will merely run on the profit motive (economism) and not a communist motive.

This is also the reason why "autonomism," "self-management," and the mere slogan of "worker's control" as the final road to communism is bad. All property in socialism results in common ownership, ownership by the "state" and the economy is completely integrated. There are not supposed to be enterprises competing against each other.

[Raúl Duke]

Within Capitalism...worker collectives/co-operative have the tendency to devolve back to the "worker-boss" situation over time (probably more so if successful) and also, as long as money/capital is a factor (even in some forms of socialism), there can be inequality between co-ops/collectives which creates instability (in socialism).

However, I do support them somewhat (although I don't delude myself to thinking that it's a step to communism as equal to revolution) in special cases in capitalism such as DJ-TC's example


But it's possible to support them as temporary activity of the working class within capitalsm; for example, when one workplace is taken over by workers who want to run it, instead of foreclosure and mass loss of jobs.In communism, they may (or will) exist in a way and decide how things go on/are run inside the workplace (i.e. workplace democracy will exist in communism) but I think I prefer if communes/neighborhood assemblies have more/most say on how resources are managed/used.

[Revolution 9]

It's my belief that in a pure free market, the workers and consumers would organize themselves mainly into a system of worker and consumer cooperatives, with only a few small, private family businesses. And yes, I believe that system would be far superior to state socialism or Marxian communism.

[Raúl Duke]

It's my belief that in a pure free market, the workers and consumers would organize themselves mainly into a system of worker and consumer cooperatives, with only a few small, private family businesses. And yes, I believe that system would be far superior to state socialism or Marxian communism.

I believe that system will probably go back to capitalism...
Is there money involved?
Can there be inequality between cooperatives?
Can these family businesses make profit (if they can it only further entrenches in my mind that mutualism, if that is what you are advocating, is a petit-bourgeoisie ideology)?

[Goose]

Theoretically, I can't even believe this is being asked.

Practically, in my experience, co-operatives tend to be riddled with hippies, who are the last egalitarian people you could wish to meet.

[Revolution 9]

I believe that system will probably go back to capitalism...

Only statist socialism can revert back to capitalism.


Is there money involved?Yes.


Can there be inequality between cooperatives?Do you want failing cooperatives to be subsidized and waste resources that could be used more efficiently? Hah!


Can these family businesses make profit

Yup.


(if they can it only further entrenches in my mind that mutualism, if that is what you are advocating, is a petit-bourgeoisie ideology)?

Nope. Mutualism is an ideology of voluntary transactions. As true anarchists, we don't want to prevent people from doing what they want to with their own property, as long as it doesn't violate other people's rights. Although mutualists don't necessarily "like" wage labor, they don't like coercion even more.

[Raúl Duke]

Only statist socialism can revert back to capitalism.Who said I was for that?
I'm for anarchist communism.

Your society will still have wage slavery, which is coercive in it's own way.
Capital will still exploit labor; especially if those co-op members can decide to hire workers (from the failing co-ops) to be their employees (here's a real world example (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080720142450401)) and if those private businesses can they will hire wage laborers too. Even if you make such practices prohibited the conditions are set for those practices to become the norm.
Looks more like "capitalism lite"; except that the co-op workers/bosses that hire labor and the private businesses will do what's in their interest and instate real capitalism.


Nope.I said: can the family private businesses make profit. You said: Yup
An ideology that advocates that sounds like a petit-bourgeoise one.

[AnthArmo]

I would have voted "cooperatives are progressive, but not the final result to communism" option if there was one.

That would probably reflect my own views as well. make them transitional. start off with the majority of businesses being workers co-ops, once your society becomes purely democratic, there can be no harm in nationalizing them. but in the Socialist stage, it would be harmful to have everything, like the media, under state control. That's a very dangerous thing to have.

[chimx]

I don't think they are good or bad, but simply ineffective and a distraction to real class struggle.

[Saorsa]

Just for the record, my article wasn't suggesting that workers co-ops are what a transition to socialism ad the construction of a socialist society should be based on. My position is that we should always call for maximum workers control over the administration of the workplace, within the framework of and subordinate to an overall planned socialist economy. We should call for workers control while we live under capitalism as it is a demand that challenges capitalism (and it's ultra-leftist idiocy to claim otherwise), and when we seize power we should promote collective administration of the workplace as much as possible.

As to the notion of whther or not we should support workers who are seizing control of their workplaces and running them themselves in the midst of a capitalist system, I would think that's fairly obvious. Obviously a single workplace, or a small number of them, being put under workers control does not herald the doom of capitalism, but the fact remains that it represents a section of the capitalist class being attacked and a section of the working class being empowered.

It would be thoroughly reactionary to oppose a workers occupation simply because it doesn't represent a society-wide, immediate transition to socialism, and anyone who did so would reveal themselves as a class enemy.

[dread...]

Worker's co-ops can be a good thing, and do not have to devolve back to a worker/boss situation, though they often do.

They are in no way an automatic transition to communism but they can foster ideas of economic democracy, solidairty, and self interest - and if a national economy is collapsing and there is mass unemployment they are certainly better than starving.

And I wouldn't automatically trust Devrim because of his "experience".:lol:

[cyu]

It would make more sense to give some industries and businesses, like the news and media, up to workers control.


Actually, I would put the more "dangerous" industries under general democratic community control... and I consider news / media to be one of those industries, because they shape the ideas of the society, and thus are in a unique position to promote their own rule.

You could imagine everyone working in the media developing into a social class of their own, and then they use their power over the lines of communication to tell everyone why rule by a media aristocracy is better than rule by everyone.

However, just because the media will be democratically controlled by everyone in society, that doesn't mean 51% of the people determine 100% of the programming. 51% would just determine 51% of the programming, and 49% of the people will determine the other 49% of the programming.

[cyu]

Worker co-operatives are something that could not exist in communism, and as they exist today are just another form of capitalism.

It would depend on your definitions of course. If by "capitalism", you mean a boss that profits from the labor of exploited employees, then no, it wouldn't be capitalism, because there is no boss to profit, since the employees themselves decide what to do with the revenue.

However, if by "communism", you mean a society with some sort of economic equality, then you're right - cooperatives don't guarantee that economic equality will exist. For example, there may be some companies that have staked out some very productive resources, and thus make much more money than those companies that don't have access to the same resources.

The anarchist answer to this is the principle of "those most affected by a decision should have the most say in that decision" - this means those who would already make a comfortable living, have less right to access resources than those who currently are not able to make a decent living due to lack of access.



However, on the main point, most worker co-ops end up with exactly the bosses and workers situation... Mondragon could be a good example.


Many democracies also end up with a bunch of rich politicians ruling over poorer voters, but I wouldn't fault the concept of democracy itself, but rather the implementation of it. The Histadrut (the Israeli labor union) is another example. It actually owns companies and was at times the largest employer in Israel. Yet the democracy in the union sometimes broke down so much that there were strikes at Histadrut companies. How would you fix this? It's certainly not to get rid of democracy in the union, but to make the democracy stronger.



The economy is capitalist. You can not run a tiny sector of it in a non capitalist way.


It's true that a lone non-capitalist company in a capitalist economy suffers many disadvantages (for example, lack of investment since the wealthy are threatened by your existence). However, I think the original question was more about in a post-capitalist economy, why not have most companies run as cooperatives?

[Revolution 9]

Who said I was for that?
I'm for anarchist communism.

Your society will still have wage slavery, which is coercive in it's own way.
Capital will still exploit labor; especially if those co-op members can decide to hire workers (from the failing co-ops) to be their employees (here's a real world example (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080720142450401)) and if those private businesses can they will hire wage laborers too. Even if you make such practices prohibited the conditions are set for those practices to become the norm.
Looks more like "capitalism lite"; except that the co-op workers/bosses that hire labor and the private businesses will do what's in their interest and instate real capitalism.

You seem to be operating under the fallacy that capitalism is actually a free market, or something close to it. This cannot be further from the truth. Government regulation, especially government enforced land monopolies and credit monopolies, are the source of unfairness today.

In a mutualist society, there would be no "wage slavery," since workers would not be bound to work for wages, like they are today. Just with the elimination of land and credit monopolies, workers would be able to acquire capital easier on their own and form their own cooperatives. It would also be much easier for all individuals to own their own land and means of production, due to the abolishment of "absentee landlordism."


I said: can the family private businesses make profit. You said: Yup
An ideology that advocates that sounds like a petit-bourgeoise one.

Didn't you say you're an anarchist? So you want to use force to prevent people from doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others?

That sounds pretty anti-anarchist to me.

[Raúl Duke]

Didn't you say you're an anarchist? So you want to use force to prevent people from doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others?

That sounds pretty anti-anarchist to meThen so is the majority of the anarchists here (which are either syndicalists or communist), in your opinion. There's nothing "un-anarchist" about force per se. :rolleyes:

Anarchism is about the abolition of hierarchy, specifically class but extending to all others (sexism, "racism", etc).

What I contend is that mutualism would, probably-likely, lead to a steady re-introduction of capitalism (and "wage slavery"), whether it has wage slaves or not initially.
The fact that profit can be accumulated and that there's a chance at inequality between co-ops could lead to those workers who are part of the failing co-ops to work as wage laborers for those family private businesses or by other worker co-ops (as non co-op members, such as the Polish Mondragon workers).
They will do this initially so to get higher paying jobs then what they were payed in their perspective failling co-op ventures but once this becomes the norm things will begin to operate somewhat like capitalism and steady become more so like modern capitalism and so will those wage labor jobs become more and more exploitive (less paying) as in modern capitalism.

(This isn't the 1st time some-one claimed I was "un-anarchist"....someone once insinuated that I was because I didn't support Veganism!)

[Q]

I voted "Yes, Allow some Worker Coopetives, Nationalise the really important industries" for lack of a better option.

But "Yes, workers should be in complete control on the companyfloor, but there should be central coordination wherever needed and deemed logical" would far better cover my opinion.

[cyu]

The fact that profit can be accumulated and that there's a chance at inequality between co-ops could lead to those workers who are part of the failing co-ops to work as wage laborers for those family private businesses or by other worker co-ops (as non co-op members, such as the Polish Mondragon workers).


It would depend on your society's definition of "co-op". One could even make the claim that more successful co-ops should be allowed to accumulate profit, as long as they are using that profit to expand. The idea is that if they are providing a valuable service to the community, they must be doing something right, and they should be encouraged to provide more of that service to more people.

However, if it were a society that truly believed in workplace democracy, then everyone (or almost everyone) in the community would protect the rights of every employee in every co-op to vote in their co-op... thus you don't have to worry about a return to capitalism.

Of course, this still doesn't guarantee economic equality. 51% could vote that 49% should receive lower pay. So workplace democracy is a valuable tool, but it's not enough to solve all of society's problems. As far as getting people to stop fighting over pay completely, see http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1231405#post1231405

[VILemon]

The idea that putting workplaces into the democratic control and ownership of workers would maintain or even, as some suggest aid, capitalism confuses me. If the workers own and run their own workplace who is extracting surplus labor-value? Who would be the capitalists in such a situation? I take it that the means of production would be distributed and owned by businesses which were worker-owned as well, so wouldn't much of the defining features of capitalism disappear under such an arrangement? I don't want to presuppose that market-mechanisms themselves are the source of exploitation.

[redarmyfaction38]

After reading an article by "Comrade Alstair" on Workers Cooperatives, I just wanted a clear consensus on all your opinions on Workers Control and self management.

Would you support Worker Cooperatives in a communist society, were they are legitimately the way forward for workers to enjoy their own fruits of their labor. Or are they merely worker controlled capitalism

My take on this is that it's stupid to Nationalize everything, this just leads to a Totalitarian society. It would make more sense to give some industries and businesses, like the news and media, up to workers control.
sorry, voted before i read the post, in a capitalist society a WORKERS CO OPERATIVE IS STILL DRIVEN BY CAPITALIST ECONOMICS AND VALUES and cannot fulfill the principles itv was based on.
in a socialist society; co operatives owned and run by the working class are party and parcel of the "great leap forward", a realisation on the part of the workers that thety don't actually need bosses and managers to provide thye necessitiews of human life. imo.