3 ms·
Cooperatives still require everyone to pitch in and some way of dividing the labor and building accountability for performing the tedious tasks that are essenti
by robotbikes 8y ago
Cooperatives still require everyone to pitch in and some way of dividing the labor and building accountability for performing the tedious tasks that are essential to maintain a legal entity. Unless you have the funds to pay everyone a living wage and in return some form of sustainable sizable income it is difficult to get the same level of contribution from people. In my experience with cooperatives they aren't the magical solution they are imagined to be. Many people are comfortable not bring in charge or arguing about how the people in charge are doing it wrong but they don't have the skills or background ideology to manage decision making cooperatively.
As a legal structure there isn't a ton of support, you are basically creating a member managed LLC or corporation and then transplanting a cooperative agreement on top of it. Getting the same level of commitment from a large number of people is the difficult thing. But if there is a small sense of joint ownership and a shared vision then perhaps it could work but as the article mentioned rotation of leadership and task assignment is a good idea lest one person be stuck holding the bag.
- jrochkind1 8y agoIt's definitely just a tool, and not a magic bullet. I too think it's a pretty good tool for the kind of enterprise talked about in the OP though. I also agree with the OP (and you) that forced rotation of leadership is a great idea, for a variety of reasons. But to be sure, starting a small retail business and succeeding is hard no matter what. And starting a _collective_ enterprise is hard no matter what too (for different 'political' reasons, even if it has no budget).