I might be able to star working on a big co-op after finishing college, I understand its not the best it can be as they exist in a capitalist system, but I think my living conditions will be better than working for some other company, what are your thoughts?
Edit: Thanks for all your responses! I will try to get to work there when I finish college, maybe in the future I can help some of your projects with the co-ops funding programs!
I think working at a co-op is basically as good as it gets under capitalism. And I think co-ops still have a role in a socialist system. State owned industry is great at meeting cross-cutting concerns such as building infrastructure, food production, education, etc. All these things need to be done without any profit motive because they’re needed in order to meet basic needs of the people. However, cooperatively owned market economy on top of that can be an effective way to provide nice to have goods that improve the quality of life for people. Incidentally, goulash communism model from Hungary is a good example of this in action.
What are your thoughts around the idea that even under socialism, co-ops will still be incentivized to make big profits, and can still perpetuate capitalist problems? I think we all agree that co-ops are ‘better’, but in an absolute value way, is it ‘enough?’
I keep wondering if under socialism we can create new incentive structures so that even co-ops won’t be incentivized too have big profits, but I’m not sure the best way to go about that, or if it has been tried before.
I think that is still a concern even under socialism. However, I’d argue that worrying about what the best possible approach might be given where we are is not really meaningful. Dialectics dictate that we connect theory to practice, and that means focusing on improving the current state of things, then once we get to a better state, we can make a hypothesis on how to improve things further, and iterate on that. It’s practically impossible for us to say what will work and what won’t without actually trying different approaches, then refining our ideas using that experience.
It’s also important to keep in mind that Marxism isn’t idealist. We should always be focused on tangible material outcomes instead of worrying about what an Utopian world might look like.
Great food for thought, thank you.
I think it was on the deprogram or maybe socialist program where they discussed an issue where in many communities there would be people who just didn’t work, and when people saw how half assed the other workers did it, they thought ‘why should I work so hard when that person is just slacking’
This is a core issue. Fairness in labour. This is what the right uses to justify capitalism because they believe the whole meritocracy lie.
So is Chinas case the solution was to say ok in this village the quota is X but if you personally go above quota you can sell the excess and keep the profit.
I find this interesting, it’s kinda capitalist communist - hybrid.
Fascinating. I think that solution use better than our capitalism, but I do wonder if we can do better, without resorting to jailing those that don’t work. Like if there is a way to incentivize work without profits, or ensure people do work they actually carry about and want to do. As well, how do we manage working less and less without it being seen as lazy, and keep up with demands.
I think if we were in a fully socialist economy with no artificial scarcity, no planned obsolescence, maximum power efficiency mandated along with housing heat / cooling efficiency, public transportation and leveraging AI models for production and allocation of resources, we wouldn’t have to work half as much as we do. Automation is only the enemy in capitalist society.
Imagine a 3 day work week, having guaranteed housing food and healthcare. Imagine no workplace discrimination on race, gender, sexual orientation discrimination, no housing discrimination, no schooling discrimination. No for profit prison system. Free public transportation. How different it would be… I think people would be incentivised because the connection to society would be stronger.
For a communist party to build dual power in a bourgeoisie dictatorship, Co-ops are great initiative. This can be seen put into use in Kerala. Out of 16000 Co-Op societies in the state, about 75 % is under the control of the party. There are about 1600 Co-Op banks in them. Even when the party is not in government, they can do lot in every sector in the state. I know these Co-Ops does not work the way western comrades imagine a Workers Co-Op function, but there is tight gripe of the party in the co-ops, in one way or another influence the life of people in the state. Even the fascist central government knows this. They are actively trying to destroy this sector in the state of Kerala through multi state co ops, in which central government has greater control. Other communist parties also should take a look into it.
I am very interested to read about how this is being done there. Do you have any sources I can look into about this in English?
I do not have any recommendations to books or anything as these things are mainly my observations. Im sure there are books specifically about the use of co-operative societies by the communist party.
I think following links will provide insight into the use of co-op in Kerala and the broader historical precedent. This comes with its own pros and cons for a communist party.
https://longreads.tni.org/public-finance-chapter-4
www.newsclick.in/Kerala-Cooperative-Model-Making-Strides-Despite-Odds
I like them. I understand that they aren’t perfect but they don’t need to be. They just need to be better than the alternative, and they sure are.
In my humble opinion, not liking cooperatives under capitalism feels like a “it’s not a perfect utopia therefore we’ll just stick with the hellish situation we have now”.
I’m happy that you got this opportunity, comrade! Best of luck!
Completely agree to that. They still are profit based, but what is not in capitalism? They do the best they can. Profit is made following an ideal, and is not given to shareholders that didn’t worked not even one minute in their life. I think is important to sustain cooperatives in this economy: I don’t see a proper revolution coming soon, so I think sustaining the social and solidarity economy can be a good way to foster a transition towards a more environmentally and socially sound society.
Thanks! I honestly feel better about my future knowing that I can have a fairer work environment than working for a normal corp, learning about Marxism has helped me a lot to see the truth in how our society works but has Ive grown more depressed over time, or maybe its just the stress from college.
Worker’s Cooperatives are about as good as you can get in capitalist conditions. You get a democratic say in co-op governance, have equity, etc, but it has limits. Here are a few:
You are still in a Capitalist system, and thus your co-op must compete with other companies. This means your co-op puts a division between you and other working class members not in your co-op.
Because your co-op is forced to operate in a Capitalist context to stay competitive, you are often forced to vote against your own interests as a working class. For example, if another company is reducing labor costs to eat your co-op’s market share and reduce co-op revenues, this may force co-op members to vote to lower their own labor costs (ie reduce benefits, incomes, or even layoof fellow members) to keep up.
Because their are still divisions between the co-op workers and the working class at large, sometimes co-ops can acquire reactionary stances. Looking at you, REI…
Those are just a few examples, and Comrade Hakim has a great video somewhere on Youtube where he goes deeper and explains better. If I weren’t using my phone right now I’d look for it for you. My best role in a revolution is not teacher though, so pardon my incomplete answer and halfassed handoff.
Either way though, it is still the best you can get in Capitalism. You get some democracy, which means workers can at least look out and protect themselves better within the cooperative. It also cam help teach people that democracy isn’t just about pushing a few voting buttons every few years then forgetting about it, that democracy can apply to all facets of life. Also, the fruits of your labor will belong to you in a cooperative for the most part (of course there is still likely to exist some issues up and down the supply chain, but that is more typing than I want to do on a tiny cell phone screen).
So ultimately, if you have the chance to make or participate in a workers cooperative, I’d say go for it, then work to resolve or alleviate some of the problems mentioned.
Co-ops are good but they shouldn’t be idealized as a real solution to the systemic problem of capitalism.
I work in a worker-coop. In short; I enjoy it and they’re neat but not everyone will be a Marxist-Leninist or even a Leftist of any stripe, or else want to engage in the broader workers’ movements or engage with unions. You can get Tories wanting to “own a business” and lots of reactionaries who think they’re super progressive for working inside co-ops.
It also comes with the whole “co-operative culture” which can tie up a lot of energy and lead to frustration for Marxist-Leninists who want to see their individual and collective resources put to use elsewhere, and there are lots of different sorts of co-ops e.g. workers’, housing, retail, building societies, etc. These are all fine and good for damage control, but often I’ve seen that for a lot of co-operative members the buck stops there and it becomes “everything should be a co-op” before too long, and the effort goes towards building “the co-operative movement” rather than situating co-ops inside the context of class struggle.
Overall my take on it is similar to what I’ve read from Lenin discussing the need for getting out of a Trade Union mindset and having the vanguard draw together disparate sites of class struggle into a cohesive revolutionary force – co-ops (especially worker co-ops) can be useful as a tool and should be engaged with and used where appropriate. Comrades operating as voting members within co-operatives of all stripes should be seeking to steer their co-operative towards materially supporting other sites of struggle: using surplus to contribute to Communist or Worker parties (not likely, but the dream!) or direct action; similarly supporting Unions, especially contributing towards solidarity funds and strikes; making public statements against Imperialist or Reactionary policies from the government etc.
Co-operatives, especially tight-knit ones, can be very good at looking after their own members and other co-operatives and I’ve found it a struggle to get mine to engage in other movements. I put my energy into the Party, instead, but I would certainly recommend working inside a co-operative to give you the space to then re-invest in the struggle.
Additional, as I don’t think I made my main point clearly!
One thing co-ops, mostly worker co-ops, have definitely got going for them is that the surplus capital is mostly put to the benefit of members/workers within the co-operative (after an amount is usually reinvested etc). This means that co-ops, especially worker co-ops, can materially support other aspects of the workers’ movements.
For me, the main problem is that co-operatives tend to operate either totally isolated for the direct benefit of their small membership or within a loose network of the “co-operative movement”; which cannot solve the inherent contradictions in capitalism and co-operatives are more fragile than super-exploitative capitalist-backed entities.
It’s a shame when they don’t engender a broader political mindset to their workers, or materially support (ie with labour or with money) other aspects of the struggle such as parties, trade unions, or other political entities.
For your point about them only benefiting the small amount of workers involved in them, do you think that that is an inherent feature of a co-opt in a capitalist society or not?
Good question. If I’m being honest I haven’t sat down and thoroughly thought about it.
One of the main contradictions I’ve found inside (worker) co-ops in a Capitalist society is that they need to remain profitable and balance worker compensation/benefits/working conditions. As was pointed out in another thread from a while ago, this means that they need to either be quite niche or need to charge higher prices than the corporate competitors.
For me and my experience in my co-op (which is successful, but niche); these conditions lend themselves to focusing on sustaining the co-operative first and looking after the workers there. This means distributing surplus effectively in terms of reinvestment into the co-op and also compensating workers via staff benefits, higher salaries, or flexible working conditions. All of this can take energy via decision-making, and co-opreatives are also a little more fragile due to this compared to their competitors generally being able to offer cheaper services with more infrastructure behind them.
For these reasons, worker co-operatives will generally have a harder time expanding the scope of their benefits outside of their direct membership (and their families). Workers can use the increased flexibility and better working conditions and more stable salary to reinvest their energy elsewhere such as in Parties etc, with the logic being that if you’re not actively fighting against a hostile workspace you might have more energy for the wider struggle. In terms of the co-operative itself, its members can absolutely vote/decide to support and benefit other aspects of the workers’ movements. This can be through financial support, doing pro-bono or reduced-rate work for specific clients (e.g. a co-operative web design agency giving a reduced rate to a Trade Union for designing their website etc), supporting strikes either on the pickets or financially (or even just allowing members to take some discrete time off for these activities if that’s more appropriate to the situation), etc.
However, as noted, the co-op itself needs to be sustainable financially (and democratically; a lot of co-ops can tear apart due to poor democracy and decision-making processes) and ensure that members continue to want to work for the co-op (despite being niche and successful, our salaries are a lot less than our contemporaries in the mega-corp consultancies because we charge our clients less than them). If those challenges can be managed, I don’t see why a willing and politically-aware co-op can’t benefit workers outside of its immediate membership, but these conditions and concerns mean that I’ve found a worker co-op will generally look after its own first. I don’t think this is a bad thing inherently, but I do think that we can’t rely on worker co-ops as a major tool of the class struggle in the long term.
All of this definitely makes sense. I am going to read more on them because quite frankly I have a lack on knowledge on the subject but all of this definitely is quite interesting.
If you find any good literature around how Worker co-ops can fit into a broader class struggle please let me know! All of my analysis is based on first-hand experience of working in a worker co-op since 2018 and being involved with my local Communist Party since 2017, which is likely only a piece of the wider puzzle since all co-ops are different and the material conditions of each country are different as well.
I’m very keen to learn if there are explicit strategies around better utilising co-operatives in class struggle and if there are tools/techniques for avoiding the pitfalls I’ve described.
Do you think that working in a co-op might be helping workers radicalise at a rate greater than a bourgeois corp?
Honestly I think it’ll depend on the members at each different co-op. From my experience, the founders of co-ops tend to be a bit more socialist-leaning in their thinking. As the co-op grows, people who are drawn to the co-op tend to be a bit more inclined towards socialism or progressivism as part of a self-selecting crowd but I think that’s a double-edged sword.
I’ve found that it’s actually harder, in some ways, to properly radicalise such people because these same people may think of themselves as having a good grasp on politics and economics already. Even if they’re nominally socialist, they still end up being anti-China and parroting US propaganda about AES throughout history, haven’t been involved in Trade Unions or solidarity movements, but have been on a few XR marches etc. A lot of the time others are doing lots of other little things here and there such as working with frontline charities, volunteering, etc. but aren’t involved in a party at all and are not interested in learning about basic Political Economy and just know that “capitalism is bad” but have an idealist view of what a socialist state should look like and lack (or disdain) the analytical tools to understand the compromises various socialist projects have had to make throughout history.
In addition to this, if workers within a co-operative aren’t regularly touching base with workers in other organisations then it’s easy to become out of touch with those struggles. In a corp, it’s at least clear that the workers producing value have shared interests to organise round getting a better deal and increasing their bargaining power, which can be useful as a vehicle for getting across the Marxist analysis of political economy and thus lead to the analyses of things such as Imperialism and building Socialism, and the need for it. In co-operatives, unless a worker has come from an existing political or trade unionist space then it’s harder to make these cases for the the broader analyses. I have had some success with colleagues discussing the contradictions of a co-op trying to protect working conditions and salary levels while attempting to stay competitive; but a lot of the time this isn’t able to go much further despite my colleagues being patient with their resident Commie.
Ultimately, running a co-operative takes a lot of work and headspace especially in a direct-governance model. Even the best intentioned can have all their energy absorbed if they’re not careful, so I think while it’s possible to radicalise workers in a co-operative, the material conditions are such that it’s an uphill struggle. Of course, quantity turns into quality. If enough radicalised workers form co-operatives to improve their conditions and then put the machinery of the co-operative to the benefit of the struggle against Capitalism without falling into the trap of “everything should just be a co-op”, then maybe we’ll reach a tipping point!
Worker Coops are good. A far more just organizational structure than private ownership. Some would offer them as a complete solution to the systemic political economic problems of capitalism. I think this is misguided as changing incorporation structures ad hoc does nothing to address the complete control capital has over politics, and thus as a revolutionary theory is inadequate and possibly dangerous.
Tl;Dr: critical support
They’re good but since they operate within a capitalist system they therefore have to have some degree of capitalist mindset, bringing forth some issues.
You should check out Mondragon (the company in the picture) and see what they do. It’s miles better than any regular capitalist org.
Edit: didn’t see you linked to Mondragon wikipedia page lol. If you want to see co-ops on a bigger scale, look into how Basque Country operates. A majority of the country operates on a co-op system with success.
Welp, Im exactly asking because I live there and I might be able to start working for Mondragon, part of my family already works there. How would I go about looking into how the Basque Country operates? (I realize its a litle silly for asking about the place I live lol, but my mind is fried with college stuff right now)
Good question. I don’t know really. I read a lot about it in a Dutch book. But using Google ‘Basque Country co-ops’ may be of use.
Cool opportunity to work at a place like that.
On an individual level, they’re fine, but they’re certainly not going to lead us out of capitalism. If you can get better living conditions, do it. Nothing wrong with that.
