Sign in or 
Location: Advent Calendar Mark Restall
Discussion: Co-operatives
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 9 posts
Prince_Philip |
Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 7:46 AM EST
Yes, co-ops are subject to the market, but they operate with higher ethical principles than for-profit corporates. If co-ops don't make a trading surplus they go bust, but they share that surplus with the members of the co-operative (which can be: consumers or employees or both) and do NOT have to answer to external share-holders. Co-operatives are mutual societies and run entirely democratically, they do not exploit themselves!
3
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
Keyword tags:
None
|
|
MarkRestall |
1. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 11:11 AM EST
There are lots of good things about co-ops - at their best they encourage solidarity and mutual aid, they show that workplaces do not have to be hierarchical and so on.However, why should we settle for something because it is not as bad as something else? Is cleaning the floors at John Lewis so much more rewarding than at a rival store? A worker's co-op can mean all kind of things, from genuinely democratic flat structured/equal pay/balanced role co-ops such as the Mondragon cafe in Canada to the hierarchical co-op posterchild Mondragon enterprises in Spain, recently accused of operating 'workcamps not workplaces' in Poland. Even the 'nicest' co-op is subject to the market. This means it must compete, usually against a competition that has no qualms against cutting labour costs, undercutting competitors and so on. It must generate a surplus, which comes from the labour of its workers, therefore the workers are in effect exploiting themselves. In no co-op are they receiving the full fruits of their labour. A decision may be taken to reduce pay/hours in order to survive with all due democratic process, but where does that get you? Where does it get workers in competing firms? Waged labour is still waged labour, even if you're one tenth (let alone one hundredth) your own boss. Commodity production is still commodity production no matter who is selling it. Without external funding a coop cannot make something /provide a service simply because that item or service is needed, it can only operate primarily on the basis of what it is able to sell. Don't get me wrong, I admire people who get together in this way, not to mention the efforts of people in, say, the Zanon factory. However my fundamental point in the article is that is the political/economic system that we have to change, not the way it is internally organised. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Prince_Philip |
2. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 12:38 PM EST
You ask: "Why should we settle for something because it is not as bad as something else?"Because we live in the real world. I yearn for the glorious revolution comrade but, until then, I still have to put food on the table for my children. In a predominantly capitalist society, I welcome the opportunity to work for a co-op based on mutuality and sound ethical & environmental principles. (I have worked in the voluntary sector for more than 10 years, but security of funding has made it a precarious existence with frequent short-term contract renewals. Working for the 'yankee dollar' was just plain horrible...) I agree with your fundamental point ("let's change the system") - but I suspect it won't have arrived by the time I have to start tomorrow morning. I have found a way to work and live with my conscience in the meanwhile. FYI - I work for The Phone Co-op; our main competitor is BT. I derive no particular pleasure from under-cutting their prices if it has any detrimental effect on security of employment for their employees but I do note that the majority of our clients are typically from the voluntary sector, other co-ops, trade unions, social enterprises, etc, for whom we save considerable costs. BT has historically exploited its monopoly situation in the market for a long time; The Phone Co-op - albeit in a small way - is helping to redress the balance. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Prince_Philip |
3. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 12:40 PM EST
In fact, more than that - the success of our co-operative in such a competitve market is helping to prove that alternatives to the capitalist system do exist...
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
MarkRestall |
4. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 1:39 PM EST
Word limits mean I'm just paraphrasing where I quoted you:>> You ask: "Why should we settle for something because it is not as bad as something else?" ... I have found a way to work and live with my conscience in the meanwhile << If I'd said that anyone working for a co-op was beyond the pale I could understand this sentiment. I'd no more criticise someone working for a co-op than I would someone working for Tesco. You notice I said 'settle'. It would be great to work in a non hierarchical workplace. What I mean is why should that be the totality of our aims? I can't see things changing overnight either, but that's no reason not to want them to, not work towards it. And my desire for this doesn't stop me working for a living. I'd also argue that given the environment they have to exist in, whatever their aims, by and large co-ops will eventually either submit to the logic of the market (albeit with fluffy edges) or fold. >>In fact, more than that - the success of our co-operative in such a competitve market is helping to prove that alternatives to the capitalist system do exist...<< My point about co-ops was that they are not an alternative to the capitalist system. As you say yourself, the co-op is competing in a market. It sells a product and is based on waged labour. It is capitalist. A nicer form of capitalism, but capitalism nevertheless. I sincerely hope that the Phone Co-op manages to hang on as an example of a different way of organising a workplace, but how long will it be before the phone co-op has managers, a split between empowering and disempowering roles and pay differentials? Look at what happened to Mondragon, which is meant to be the co-operative ideal. Massive pay differentials, managers and crass exploitation of Polish workers. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Prince_Philip |
5. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 5:01 PM EST
Mondragon? Bad examples do not disprove models. You assert that because we operate in a market we are therefore capitalist. Mutuality is not only an alternative-to, it is also an absolute rejection-of capitalism, the the pursuit of profit and the private accumulation of wealth. ("To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.") Is a managerial grade a rejection of co-operation? Next year, I will stand for election (as an employee) to the board of directors and be judged by the members in a democratic ballot. Join us - become a customer and thence a member - and vote for me? Do you find this valuable? |
|
MarkRestall |
6. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 17 2008, 5:52 PM EST
Mondragon, 'the' Co-op, John Lewis, there are plenty of examples.I was not asserting that operating in a market is capitalist. I was asserting that the use of market logic, waged labour and commodity production is capitalist. By pursuing profit - which you are, and must do to survive - you clearly aren't securing for workers the full fruits of their industry. The means of production, distribution and exchange are not in common ownership. They're in shared ownership, as are PLCs. It's the creation of popular capitalism in a parallel to the utopian shareholder capitalism of the Thatcher era. By the sound of it you do have managerial roles after all - are they paid 'equitably'? Really? The effort and onerousness of their tasks are more than that of people on lower pay? You're not a waged labourer? You're not involved in commodity production? Capitalism is not something you can live outside, no matter what the hippies might tell you. Managerial grades, if they involve power and income differentials, are a clear rejection of the co-operation of equals. Otherwise, by that token, all workplaces are co-operative. The aim of socialism, which you seem to be espousing, should be the abolition of classes, not the cementation of new ones. That kind of class society is the 'socialism' of Leninists and the old Labour Party. As a hierarchical organisation you're not even an alternative as a microcosm to capitalist workplaces. All of this is a major side issue to my original article by the way... Do you find this valuable? |
|
Prince_Philip |
7. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 18 2008, 5:31 AM EST
What you call 'profit' we call 'surplus' and our surpluses are shared equally amongst the members - perhaps not the full fruits but a damn good harvest nonetheless. Yes, we have pay differentials, but they are miniscule compared to capitalist businesses and reflect the different abilities and contributions of the individuals concerned. All members of the co-operative are equal in the overall democratic (OMOV) control of the organisation even if not in the day-to-day running of operations.Co-operatives may not be pure socialism but this is real life, not an essay in utopian dreaming. I maintain once again that mutuality is an absolute rejection of capitalism. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Prince_Philip |
8. RE: Co-operatives
Dec 18 2008, 5:32 AM EST
The rest of your article I agreed with... :)
Do you find this valuable?
|
