Mondragon Corporation & Workers Cooperatives

[UnapologeticPsychopath]

I was wondering what brother & sister socialists think of the Mondragon Corporation and their Workers Cooperatives?

I find the structure of them pleasing to the point where every member has access to the means of production and can earn a decent wage.

Are there any initiatives else where in Europe which reflect the Mondragon Corporation model?

[oneday]

When I first became re-interested in politics I exposed myself to Richard Wolff quite a bit, which gave me some interest in cooperatives. However, after further research it is fairly obvious that these types of structures will never transcend capital relations, they exist within the value system and will be driven to becoming more and more like a traditional capitalist enterprise, even against the wishes of the owner-workers.

Less than half of Mondragon's workforce are actually worker-members now, the rest are traditional wage workers. From http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nt-cooperative

Like other European companies, Mondragon is exposed to fierce competition from developing world competitors with lower labour costs. Its response has been to set up factories – or buy companies – in other parts of the world. There are now 94 subsidiaries producing goods from Vietnam to Chile, Morocco and Russia.

Workers at these, however, are not co-op members (fewer than half of Mondragon's workforce are members) – meaning they are also raw-blooded capitalists, living off the labour of others.

Even if it was possible to maintain a 'pure' worker-cooperative on a purely ideological basis (utopian), there is no socialism here - commodities are produced for profit to meet the demands of the value system, instead of planning production for meeting human needs.

[Gegenstandpunkt]

It is a capitalist enterprise, and nothing else; they pay wages and produce commodities with which they compete in a capitalist market.

This cooperative thing is one of the fallacies of leftwing movements, false criticism of capitalism. It doesn't matter who is in charge of a capitalistic business, the point is that it is capitalistic! Exchanging the train conductor doesn't have the train move in a different direction.

[Aslan]

The spread of cooperatives is similar to the increased ''teamwork'' in our school system. It may superficially seem as if we are being more friendly and cutting down of the aggressive competition that made old capitalism so infamous. There is still rigorous competition and a profit motive that all capitalist organizations (whether cooperative or not) will have. Capitalists need to compete in order to get more money, and need to make their underlings compete too in order to keep them pacified and content with the current world order. Cooperatives are another curtain of defense and propaganda that can be used to deflect criticism.

This is also a purely first world phenomenon as well. You ever see capitalists establish these in the third world? No, first because its in a country that no liberal cares about. And second because there must always be money-making to be made. That is why ''cooperatives'' are nothing more than a lousy attempt for capitalists to make themselves seem more ''human''. A tool to keep first world trade unions and Liberals in check.

We shouldn't be deceived by this facade of kindness. Something similar in Japan has already happened, where cooperation in the workplace is a must. Though we can see how well it went there. It is nonsense to think of it as positive, and now its getting popular too. With companies in silicon valley and other current sectors using this as well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I agree that we should not mistakenly believe that coops are "socialist" or could form the basis of a "socialist" society, but we shouldn't dismiss them entirely. They show that the existence of private capital standing above the workers is not necessary for economic success and they often do provide better wages.

The problem isn't with coops as such, it's in mistakenly thinking that they somehow overturn capitalist relations, or are in themselves revolutionary.

This is also a purely first world phenomenon as well. You ever see capitalists establish these in the third world? No, first because its in a country that no liberal cares about. And second because there must always be money-making to be made. That is why ''cooperatives'' are nothing more than a lousy attempt for capitalists to make themselves seem more ''human''. A tool to keep first world trade unions and Liberals in check.

There are cooperatives in the 3rd world. Latin America has a decent number, and Argentina in particular has a lot due to the response by workers to their economic crises.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/03/mexic...n-alternative/

[Aslan]

I agree that we should not mistakenly believe that coops are "socialist" or could form the basis of a "socialist" society, but we shouldn't dismiss them entirely. They show that the existence of private capital standing above the workers is not necessary for economic success and they often do provide better wages.

The problem isn't with coops as such, it's in mistakenly thinking that they somehow overturn capitalist relations, or are in themselves revolutionary.

There are cooperatives in the 3rd world. Latin America has a decent number, and Argentina in particular has a lot due to the response by workers to their economic crises.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/03/mexic...n-alternative/

1. The only use of cooperatives that I see are a portal into what a socialism workplace could look like.

2. Agree 100%

3. True, as I learned in studying science, there are always exceptions. I'm skeptical that East Asian sweatshops and African mines will ever become cooperatives. No coverage, no controversy, no reason to change. I see coops as a propaganda tool for capitalists, a futuristic interpretation of labor for future oppression and exploitation.

[Bala Perdida]

A lot of these co-ops sound like start-ups to me these days. The way they run and talk you into joining. From what I've been through, start-ups suck so I wouldn't trust working for something that runs similarly. Also how do they tax workers in countries like this?

[ManBeaR]

These "co-ops" seems awfully similar to to the early utopian movements, believing that socialism can develop separately inside a capitalist society.

[UnapologeticPsychopath]

My view is that CO-OPs present some form of organisation structure where fair distribution of wealth can occur in relation to workers production while within the Capitalist system.

Socialism isn't achieved over night and people still need the means to live so CO-OPs do serve a purpose.

However I think a CO-OP must have some kind of Socialist constitution so no matter what the democratic will is of the workers the under laying principles the CO-OP was founded on preserve the rights of every worker and push capitalist interests out of the CO-OP at every given opportunity.

To many CO-OPs have failed due to Capitalists taking them over.

But thanks Brothers & Sisters for your comments. Hopefully I can look into more of the Mondragon Cooperative faults which you addressed and learn the ways which Capitalists take over.