3 ms·

Worker cooperatives are fully compatible with capitalism. Only mentioning it because sometimes this idea gets unfairly maligned due to some mistaken association

Worker cooperatives are fully compatible with capitalism. Only mentioning it because sometimes this idea gets unfairly maligned due to some mistaken association with socialism or even communism. There should be more of these sorts of entities in the USA and Europe, and frankly everywhere. It's an assured route towards better conditions for the working class, by making them owners and stakeholders in a more substantial way than merely holding some stock equity (which is kind of a superficial ownership that's sometimes presented as this same type of worker cooperative ownership).

01100010x 2mo ago
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, especially Green and Blue Mars, provide a nice fictional exploration of this idea. I think Mondragon may even be name dropped.
- wtfwhateven 2mo ago
  Yes it is! the Mondragon Accords. my first thought when seeing the title :) had no idea the name was based on something real! Have been listening to an audio-book of 2312 when I have the time to be fully attentive
roenxi 2mo ago
It remains confusing that, after centuries of profiting off capital generally being a much better strategic choice than profiting off labour, workers insist and persist in trying to make labour work. If the unions had dumped their efforts into co-ops instead of trying to fight their own companies then they might have managed to have a positive impact. They've been at it for long enough for capital accumulation to have kicked in even at pathetic rates of saving.
- kdfjgbdfkjgb 2mo ago
  capitalists profit of labour, it's just other people's labour.
- soco 2mo ago
  I call free weekends, 40 hours work week, no children work all positive impacts of the unions. And there are for sure more of these.
- vjvjvjvjghv 2mo ago
  You can’t profit off capital if nobody does the labor. We need both roles and both deserve respect. What would Musk do if nobody worked for him? He is probably not going to be able to develop rockets alone in his basement.
- anon7725 2mo ago
  You may be surprised to learn that if one does not have capital, yet does have the capacity to labour, then one may seek to make labour work rather than profiting from capital.
inigyou 2mo ago
Capitalism is not simply free markers - it means "control by people with capital." People control society proportionally to how much capital they have, and those who control vast boards of capital are very uninterested in allowing capital to be spread around more equitably.
- js8 2mo ago
  The parent post is not even the worst offender. In his (otherwise good) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Things_They_Don%27t_Tell_You_About_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Things_They_Don%27t_Tell_Yo..., Ha-Joon Chang completely flips the meaning between free markets and capitalism. I would say that capitalism is not only characterized by private ownership of capital, but also by free market for labor, which could be almost considered a complementary feature (other side of the same coin). On the other hand, socialism primarily rejects free market for labour in favor of worker emancipation and participation in decision-making. So both socialism and capitalism are compatible with free markets; it's the labor market where the opinion differs. (As a socialist, I would add, salaries cannot be treated in economics the same way as e.g. price of apples, because apple doesn't care what its price is.)
  - ralusek 2mo ago
    Socialism is completely incompatible with free markets. Free markets typically stop being opinionated beyond the concept of enforcing contracts/consent, i.e. people are allowed to structure their economic relationships with one another however they want, they just have to respect their agreements. Socialism is a prescriptive ideology, it is concerned precisely with the nature of the economic relationships people make. Labor theory of value. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Workers own the means of production. To the degree that people are able to freely structure their economic relationships with one another, then the vast majority of those relationships will look nothing like the prescriptions of socialism. To the degree that the economic relationships are made to look like the prescriptions of socialism, then the economic model would fail to be described as a free market. This is why in a free market/"capitalist" economy, communes can exist, Mondragon can exist...because you can structure your relationships with one another however you want. It's just that most people don't like that structure. "Capitalism" itself doesn't care at all if that's the way people want to distribute equity and control of the corporation. Now, if you want to structure an arbitrary economic relationship in a socialist communist country...good luck.
EGreg 2mo ago
It is quintessential socialism: collective ownership (of the “means of production”). It is just embedded in a market system, just as, say, USSR or Cuba was embedded in the global economy. That doesn’t make it not socialist. And not all socialism is “bad”. It has to do with whether it is voluntary or not. I am a libertarian, and I fully support communes, housing cooperatives, credit unions and the like. I consider the lack of a superfluous extractive landlord or shareholder class a feature.
mikojan 2mo ago
It is not a mistaken association. Socialism traditionally meant workers control over production. Work councils in Germany originally pursued direct workers control over respective businesses. Unions in Germany pursued some version of this well into the 1950s. Most socialist movements in Europe understood this to _be_ Socialism until the Soviet counter-revolution swept it all away. And there is another forgotten truth. Before the Soviet counter-revolution, liberals advocated for this type of Socialism. The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves. - John Stuart Mill

01100010x 2mo ago

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, especially Green and Blue Mars, provide a nice fictional exploration of this idea. I think Mondragon may even be name dropped.

wtfwhateven 2mo ago
Yes it is! the Mondragon Accords. my first thought when seeing the title :) had no idea the name was based on something real! Have been listening to an audio-book of 2312 when I have the time to be fully attentive

roenxi 2mo ago

It remains confusing that, after centuries of profiting off capital generally being a much better strategic choice than profiting off labour, workers insist and persist in trying to make labour work. If the unions had dumped their efforts into co-ops instead of trying to fight their own companies then they might have managed to have a positive impact. They've been at it for long enough for capital accumulation to have kicked in even at pathetic rates of saving.

kdfjgbdfkjgb 2mo ago
capitalists profit of labour, it's just other people's labour.
soco 2mo ago
I call free weekends, 40 hours work week, no children work all positive impacts of the unions. And there are for sure more of these.
vjvjvjvjghv 2mo ago
You can’t profit off capital if nobody does the labor. We need both roles and both deserve respect. What would Musk do if nobody worked for him? He is probably not going to be able to develop rockets alone in his basement.
anon7725 2mo ago
You may be surprised to learn that if one does not have capital, yet does have the capacity to labour, then one may seek to make labour work rather than profiting from capital.

inigyou 2mo ago

Capitalism is not simply free markers - it means "control by people with capital." People control society proportionally to how much capital they have, and those who control vast boards of capital are very uninterested in allowing capital to be spread around more equitably.

js8 2mo ago
The parent post is not even the worst offender. In his (otherwise good) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Things_They_Don%27t_Tell_You_About_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Things_They_Don%27t_Tell_Yo..., Ha-Joon Chang completely flips the meaning between free markets and capitalism. I would say that capitalism is not only characterized by private ownership of capital, but also by free market for labor, which could be almost considered a complementary feature (other side of the same coin). On the other hand, socialism primarily rejects free market for labour in favor of worker emancipation and participation in decision-making. So both socialism and capitalism are compatible with free markets; it's the labor market where the opinion differs. (As a socialist, I would add, salaries cannot be treated in economics the same way as e.g. price of apples, because apple doesn't care what its price is.)
- ralusek 2mo ago
  Socialism is completely incompatible with free markets. Free markets typically stop being opinionated beyond the concept of enforcing contracts/consent, i.e. people are allowed to structure their economic relationships with one another however they want, they just have to respect their agreements. Socialism is a prescriptive ideology, it is concerned precisely with the nature of the economic relationships people make. Labor theory of value. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Workers own the means of production. To the degree that people are able to freely structure their economic relationships with one another, then the vast majority of those relationships will look nothing like the prescriptions of socialism. To the degree that the economic relationships are made to look like the prescriptions of socialism, then the economic model would fail to be described as a free market. This is why in a free market/"capitalist" economy, communes can exist, Mondragon can exist...because you can structure your relationships with one another however you want. It's just that most people don't like that structure. "Capitalism" itself doesn't care at all if that's the way people want to distribute equity and control of the corporation. Now, if you want to structure an arbitrary economic relationship in a socialist communist country...good luck.

EGreg 2mo ago

It is quintessential socialism: collective ownership (of the “means of production”). It is just embedded in a market system, just as, say, USSR or Cuba was embedded in the global economy. That doesn’t make it not socialist. And not all socialism is “bad”. It has to do with whether it is voluntary or not. I am a libertarian, and I fully support communes, housing cooperatives, credit unions and the like. I consider the lack of a superfluous extractive landlord or shareholder class a feature.

mikojan 2mo ago

It is not a mistaken association. Socialism traditionally meant workers control over production. Work councils in Germany originally pursued direct workers control over respective businesses. Unions in Germany pursued some version of this well into the 1950s. Most socialist movements in Europe understood this to _be_ Socialism until the Soviet counter-revolution swept it all away. And there is another forgotten truth. Before the Soviet counter-revolution, liberals advocated for this type of Socialism. The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves. - John Stuart Mill