5 ms·

Worker-owned coops are the kind of Communism that a capitalist can really get behind. Good show. Also, Arizmendi Bakery is in fact delicious.

binxbolling 13y ago
Except in communism it'd be the community (or, commune) that'd own the business. Since this is worker-owned, it's closer to syndicalism than communism (or socialism).
- beat 13y ago
  Lovely bit of history... the anarcho-syndicalists were the third element of the Spanish Civil War. And if there's one thing the fascists and communists could agree on, it was that both hated the anarchists more than they hated each other. Unfortunately, when you organize at the level of a farm or a factory, you're no match for an enemy that can throw 1000 troops at you in order to crush you. Noam Chomsky's history of the Spanish Civil War is an insightful and depressing read. :( I worry about coops in the business world for the same reason. They have limited defense against massive corporations that decide they are enemies. But that's true of any small business.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    Some employee-owned companies are pretty big - the John Lewis Partnership here in the UK has revenue of ~£10 billion and 91,000 employees. What I find amusing about John Lewis is that although they are employee owned they are actually a key part of respectable middle class life - even more so their upscale Waitrose supermarket chain which has close links to the Royals (the Duchy Originals brand was started by the Prince of Wales and is now exclusive to Waitrose).
  - pekk 13y ago
    Instead of reading Noam Chomsky's propaganda written from great distance (knowing that Chomsky has been an apologist for e.g. the Khmer Rouge), just read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia where he relates direct experience. Or any other primary source.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "(knowing that Chomsky has been an apologist for e.g. the Khmer Rouge)" By my reading, this is an overstatement. My understanding, having dug into the issue a bit some years back, is that he was skeptical of the reporting; arguably overly skeptical, and certainly incorrect in retrospect, but that's not quite the same thing as supporting or condoning.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      I don't know Chomsky's work, but Orwell's is great (at least so far). But he says much of the same in chapter 5: http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/HomageToCatalonia/catalonia_ch_5.html http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/HomageTo...
  - sitkack 13y ago
    How about something that is a cross between an insurance company an a law firm. A bunch of co-ops could pay in for counsel, the firm would audit each co-op on their legal exposure and set rates.
ap22213 13y ago
Owner-owned corporations are the kind of Feudalism that a capitalist can really get behind.
- twic 13y ago
  "Owner-owned corporations" are the kind of construction that a tautologist can really get behind.
  - ap22213 13y ago
    Well, I was going for a stress on words, rather than a logical statement. But, I upvoted you because I like tautologies!
jerf 13y ago
One of the strengths of capitalism is that it does not philosophically insist that the macroeconomic system must match all microeconomic systems, enabling local adaptations to changing conditions without global-level upheavals. It is not part of the capitalistic ethos that all organizations must be run on the same principles. Contrast this with philosophies like Communism that claims to have The One Answer To All Problems. If, for instance, technology shifts over time such that a large-scale corporate system becomes optimal, the capitalistic society can shift with it. And if technology changes so that the optimal situation becomes a much large set of smaller, nimbler competitors, which is probably where we're currently going, we don't have to have a bloody revolution to permit new organizations to be adopted. And at no time is there a contradiction between a co-op, a centrally-managed company, a hierarchy-less Valve-style company, and a non-profit all operating in the same space.
- jahaja 13y ago
  On the other hand; I think that a solid foundation of co-ops and similarly worker-owned workplaces would be required for the abolishment of capitalism altogether.
  - jerf 13y ago
    Part of my point is that it is not at all clear that a structure which works at a relatively small scale (hundreds, thousands tops) necessarily works at a national scale. There is no a priori reason to assume the two sets would be the same. There is no practical evidence to suggest they are the same. There is a lot of evidence they aren't the same.

binxbolling 13y ago

Except in communism it'd be the community (or, commune) that'd own the business. Since this is worker-owned, it's closer to syndicalism than communism (or socialism).

beat 13y ago
Lovely bit of history... the anarcho-syndicalists were the third element of the Spanish Civil War. And if there's one thing the fascists and communists could agree on, it was that both hated the anarchists more than they hated each other. Unfortunately, when you organize at the level of a farm or a factory, you're no match for an enemy that can throw 1000 troops at you in order to crush you. Noam Chomsky's history of the Spanish Civil War is an insightful and depressing read. :( I worry about coops in the business world for the same reason. They have limited defense against massive corporations that decide they are enemies. But that's true of any small business.
- arethuza 13y ago
  Some employee-owned companies are pretty big - the John Lewis Partnership here in the UK has revenue of ~£10 billion and 91,000 employees. What I find amusing about John Lewis is that although they are employee owned they are actually a key part of respectable middle class life - even more so their upscale Waitrose supermarket chain which has close links to the Royals (the Duchy Originals brand was started by the Prince of Wales and is now exclusive to Waitrose).
- pekk 13y ago
  Instead of reading Noam Chomsky's propaganda written from great distance (knowing that Chomsky has been an apologist for e.g. the Khmer Rouge), just read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia where he relates direct experience. Or any other primary source.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "(knowing that Chomsky has been an apologist for e.g. the Khmer Rouge)" By my reading, this is an overstatement. My understanding, having dug into the issue a bit some years back, is that he was skeptical of the reporting; arguably overly skeptical, and certainly incorrect in retrospect, but that's not quite the same thing as supporting or condoning.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    I don't know Chomsky's work, but Orwell's is great (at least so far). But he says much of the same in chapter 5: http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/HomageToCatalonia/catalonia_ch_5.html http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/HomageTo...
- sitkack 13y ago
  How about something that is a cross between an insurance company an a law firm. A bunch of co-ops could pay in for counsel, the firm would audit each co-op on their legal exposure and set rates.

ap22213 13y ago

Owner-owned corporations are the kind of Feudalism that a capitalist can really get behind.

twic 13y ago
"Owner-owned corporations" are the kind of construction that a tautologist can really get behind.
- ap22213 13y ago
  Well, I was going for a stress on words, rather than a logical statement. But, I upvoted you because I like tautologies!

jerf 13y ago

One of the strengths of capitalism is that it does not philosophically insist that the macroeconomic system must match all microeconomic systems, enabling local adaptations to changing conditions without global-level upheavals. It is not part of the capitalistic ethos that all organizations must be run on the same principles. Contrast this with philosophies like Communism that claims to have The One Answer To All Problems. If, for instance, technology shifts over time such that a large-scale corporate system becomes optimal, the capitalistic society can shift with it. And if technology changes so that the optimal situation becomes a much large set of smaller, nimbler competitors, which is probably where we're currently going, we don't have to have a bloody revolution to permit new organizations to be adopted. And at no time is there a contradiction between a co-op, a centrally-managed company, a hierarchy-less Valve-style company, and a non-profit all operating in the same space.

jahaja 13y ago
On the other hand; I think that a solid foundation of co-ops and similarly worker-owned workplaces would be required for the abolishment of capitalism altogether.
- jerf 13y ago
  Part of my point is that it is not at all clear that a structure which works at a relatively small scale (hundreds, thousands tops) necessarily works at a national scale. There is no a priori reason to assume the two sets would be the same. There is no practical evidence to suggest they are the same. There is a lot of evidence they aren't the same.