5 ms·

You are right that people can absolutely form co-operatives. However, if I wanted to work on, say, World of Warcraft, I could hardly show up and demand Blizzard

You are right that people can absolutely form co-operatives. However, if I wanted to work on, say, World of Warcraft, I could hardly show up and demand Blizzard be turned into a co-operative. Maybe you meant “well, if people are so upset by the status quo, why don't they just all quit and form their own co-operatives to make Starcraft 3?”. This is a great point, and a really interesting question. I think we should all encourage these more just ways of organising companies, but I think people really hesitate to do this because it's really drilled into us culturally that the current system is the only way. In particular, we want to be successful, and be seen as successful, and we get a lot more points in that category if we work for a successful corporation such as Meta, compared to forming some ragtag co-operative. I do think, and hope, that this is starting to change. I admire the fact that sourcehut [0] is basically organised as a co-operative, and for that matter, so is Valve. [0]: https://sourcehut.org/ https://sourcehut.org/

solar-ice 4y ago
Part of the issue (in countries where you're not liable to be shot or accused by the police of running a cult or what-have-you) is that worker co-ops do not generally have access to significant capital or loans from VCs and banks which are scared of them, so cannot usually spend outside their means to grow - while companies that mesh well with current financialised society can. As a result, co-ops need to grow differently and often compete differently; you can't afford to pay 50 people right out the gate to build Starcraft 3 to sell in 2 years' time. You need to be making money from day 1, and you can't compete directly with companies that have access to capital or you lose immediately. There do exist co-ops in the video game industry - Motion Twin, behind Dead Cells, is one.
- vladharbuz 4y ago
  I'm very interested in this point! Do you think there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? Or do you think that the fear you mentioned is just a result of them being currently unconventional, and this problem will be fixed once we culturally become more open to alternative ways of organising work?
  - matheusd 4y ago
    We could ask! This is HN, which a non-insignificant cohort of various types of investors (angels, VCs, maybe bankers?) visit. So let's open a couple of Ask HN/Pool HN: Are you an investor? Did you invest in a coop-like startup? Would you invest in a coop-like startup? Under which conditions?
    - nunez 4y ago
      Would the fact that the capital held by a lot of investors is provided by companies that are not co-ops limit their ability to invest in co-ops?
    - vladharbuz 4y ago
      This is a wonderful idea. I'll try to draft something like this, but if you post this yourself, or notice it posted by someone else with more experience in the VC world than me, would you please ping me? Contact details at https://vladh.net https://vladh.net. :)
  - jasode 4y ago
    >there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? It's the intrinsic structure of being owned by the workers that makes co-operatives less financially attractive to outside investors. My previous comment about why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 Co-operatives also have to compete in the marketplace (compete in both the costs & revenue) with other companies that are not co-ops. This financial pressure from other global economic actors is what causes co-ops like Mondragon to outsource labor to subcontractors or workforce in other countries who are not true members of the co-op. Mondragon appliances, etc still have to compete in sales with everyone else.
    - vladharbuz 4y ago
      This is an interesting answer, thank you! I agree that co-ops using only funds contributed by their members will struggle to compete with companies that receive large investments. However, the bigger question is why investors would not want to invest in a co-operative. As far as I can tell, you're saying that investment in co-operatives is intrinsically less attractive because investors would obtain some kind of fixed return, as opposed to permanent ownership of shares in the company. Is that what you meant? If so, the question that remains is a relatively open one. Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we reached the conclusion that organising companies as co-operatives would bring considerable social benefits to the majority of people compared to the current way or organising work. If this were true, what would have to be changed so as to make them a reasonable option? Perhaps our values of prioritising economic values over social value? Perhaps regulations on shareholders? Yanis Varoufakis proposes a system that answers this question in Another Now [0], but I'm also curious to hear other answers. [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now
badpun 4y ago
> However, if I wanted to work on, say, World of Warcraft, I could hardly show up and demand Blizzard be turned into a co-operative. You can always start a co-op which makes a WoW clone. Nothing stops people from that. The fact that it's practically never done says a lot about real-life applicability of co-ops.
- vladharbuz 4y ago
  Do you think that just because something is not regularly done, that automatically means it is bad or not feasible? Relatedly, do you think the fact that our culture has somewhat of a focus on individual economic success and the accumulation of power might have something to do with the fact that co-operatives are not at the forefront of our radar?
  - badpun 4y ago
    > Do you think that just because something is not regularly done, that automatically means it is bad or not feasible? I think it proves that co-ops are just worse at complex tasks. A company requires just one dedicated and driven individual (the founder), and the rest of people can be hired and just do tasks assigned to them. Whereas, in a coop, the decision-making process is much harder, and just doesn't work as well for complex organizations. And, game devving (like many other complex tasks) is so hard and fraught with perils, that you don't want to throw in additional complications if you don't have to.

solar-ice 4y ago

Part of the issue (in countries where you're not liable to be shot or accused by the police of running a cult or what-have-you) is that worker co-ops do not generally have access to significant capital or loans from VCs and banks which are scared of them, so cannot usually spend outside their means to grow - while companies that mesh well with current financialised society can. As a result, co-ops need to grow differently and often compete differently; you can't afford to pay 50 people right out the gate to build Starcraft 3 to sell in 2 years' time. You need to be making money from day 1, and you can't compete directly with companies that have access to capital or you lose immediately. There do exist co-ops in the video game industry - Motion Twin, behind Dead Cells, is one.

vladharbuz 4y ago
I'm very interested in this point! Do you think there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? Or do you think that the fear you mentioned is just a result of them being currently unconventional, and this problem will be fixed once we culturally become more open to alternative ways of organising work?
- matheusd 4y ago
  We could ask! This is HN, which a non-insignificant cohort of various types of investors (angels, VCs, maybe bankers?) visit. So let's open a couple of Ask HN/Pool HN: Are you an investor? Did you invest in a coop-like startup? Would you invest in a coop-like startup? Under which conditions?
  - nunez 4y ago
    Would the fact that the capital held by a lot of investors is provided by companies that are not co-ops limit their ability to invest in co-ops?
  - vladharbuz 4y ago
    This is a wonderful idea. I'll try to draft something like this, but if you post this yourself, or notice it posted by someone else with more experience in the VC world than me, would you please ping me? Contact details at https://vladh.net https://vladh.net. :)
- jasode 4y ago
  >there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? It's the intrinsic structure of being owned by the workers that makes co-operatives less financially attractive to outside investors. My previous comment about why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 Co-operatives also have to compete in the marketplace (compete in both the costs & revenue) with other companies that are not co-ops. This financial pressure from other global economic actors is what causes co-ops like Mondragon to outsource labor to subcontractors or workforce in other countries who are not true members of the co-op. Mondragon appliances, etc still have to compete in sales with everyone else.
  - vladharbuz 4y ago
    This is an interesting answer, thank you! I agree that co-ops using only funds contributed by their members will struggle to compete with companies that receive large investments. However, the bigger question is why investors would not want to invest in a co-operative. As far as I can tell, you're saying that investment in co-operatives is intrinsically less attractive because investors would obtain some kind of fixed return, as opposed to permanent ownership of shares in the company. Is that what you meant? If so, the question that remains is a relatively open one. Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we reached the conclusion that organising companies as co-operatives would bring considerable social benefits to the majority of people compared to the current way or organising work. If this were true, what would have to be changed so as to make them a reasonable option? Perhaps our values of prioritising economic values over social value? Perhaps regulations on shareholders? Yanis Varoufakis proposes a system that answers this question in Another Now [0], but I'm also curious to hear other answers. [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now

badpun 4y ago

> However, if I wanted to work on, say, World of Warcraft, I could hardly show up and demand Blizzard be turned into a co-operative. You can always start a co-op which makes a WoW clone. Nothing stops people from that. The fact that it's practically never done says a lot about real-life applicability of co-ops.

vladharbuz 4y ago
Do you think that just because something is not regularly done, that automatically means it is bad or not feasible? Relatedly, do you think the fact that our culture has somewhat of a focus on individual economic success and the accumulation of power might have something to do with the fact that co-operatives are not at the forefront of our radar?
- badpun 4y ago
  > Do you think that just because something is not regularly done, that automatically means it is bad or not feasible? I think it proves that co-ops are just worse at complex tasks. A company requires just one dedicated and driven individual (the founder), and the rest of people can be hired and just do tasks assigned to them. Whereas, in a coop, the decision-making process is much harder, and just doesn't work as well for complex organizations. And, game devving (like many other complex tasks) is so hard and fraught with perils, that you don't want to throw in additional complications if you don't have to.