The circus of Election 2016—a presidential race consumed with emails, insults, and genitalia-grabbing—sent shockwaves around the world as Donald Trump became America’s “Mr. Brexit” on November 8th.
In hindsight, the real shocker in this election should have been the nonexistent debate about the connections between finance, globalization, rising inequality, and the rampant instability of our economic system. There’s something to be said for the fact that a great majority of the electorate either didn’t cast a ballot or voted for the “change” candidate just as they did back in 2008.
But why expect our new billionaire president-elect to make any systemic changes? He is the very embodiment of the corporate capitalism that has wreaked havoc on the wages, benefits and job security of working and middle-class Americans over the past 40 years. If we had a serious, honest and open dialogue, perhaps more of our country would have realized that the 62 richest billionaires (the majority being American) now own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population. Or, that because executives can be paid in stock options, CEOs use billions in corporate profits to buy back their own stocks instead of making investments in tangible production and labor.
The mounting evidence tells us that the economy shouldn’t be in the hands of a tiny percentage of people. A new left politics must focus on examining how capitalist enterprises are organized, and challenge why a tiny number of people – major shareholders and the boards of directors they select – wield undemocratic demand, excluding the vast majority of workers. We need a country that advocates for a change in the organization of our economy from the top-down and hierarchical corporate model towards employee ownership, where workers decide democratically (one member, one vote) what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. By comparing the differences, we can then develop a framework and political strategy for transitioning to an economic system that addresses the issues capitalism produces.
The idea that employees can run their own firms might sound unrealistic to some, but there are very healthy worker cooperative sectors that co-exist alongside capitalist ones today. In Italy’s Emilia Romagna region, two out of three of its 4.5 million residents are coop members, and worker-owned enterprises produce a third of its GDP. The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque region of Spain is an extraordinary 80,000-person grouping of worker-owned cooperatives, where the ratio of compensation between top executives and its lowest-paid members is between three to one and six to one. New York City’s Cooperative Home Care Associates is America’s largest worker-owned cooperative with 2,300 members that is over 90 percent owned by women of color. And studies show that worker-owned cooperatives are more productive than normal businesses, and lead to happier and more efficient employees.
These are the types of stories we’ll be documenting in Coop Talk, Democracy at Work’s volunteer-run news blog that will disseminate knowledge, research, and analysis in support of the advancement of worker-owned cooperatives.
Effective immediately, we are welcoming volunteer guest posts and publishing content on the worker cooperative movement in a wide array of formats. We invite you to consume, utilize and share the material provided on Coop Talk, but we also want you to become part of the conversation.
The emerging new politics will work for democratizing enterprises, and thereby the economy. In place of hierarchical, top-down autocratic enterprise organizations, it will advance worker cooperatives. The success of this movement would mean that political will and organization can finally address the systemic roots of so many of this country’s problems. If we can first democratize the workplace, we can then rebuild a democratic society on a firm foundation of economic justice.
For more information on how to get involved with Coop Talk, please email [email protected]. And be sure to visit the blog regularly, at www.democracyatwork.info/cooptalk.
Sincerely,
Showing 21 comments
A Prime groupe for making into a coop is health and social care fore starters.
I did want to note that Marx was initially enthusiastic about worker cooperatives, but then became convinced that coops’ necessary involvement in capitalist markets degraded or destroyed them.
On the other hand, Joel Kovel’s discussion of the Bruderhof “communist” religious communities’ economic enterprises in his Enemy of Nature (2003) shows how left worker coops might survive in a capitalist ecosystem.
So, let us take examples from the most successful models Co ops have to offer.
Anyone? Bernie and millions of other progressives believed that, grassroots efforts and high social activity both on the internet and in local gatherings would create and allow the changes the majority of poor and middle class citizens naturally anticipated. WTF happened?
So, it is this very conundrum that challenged us before the elections that is confronting us with the differences between Capitalism and the philosophy of of Co ops.
This whole senario reminds my of a great song by a great singer, Billy Holiday. God Bless The Child. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=who%20wrote%20god%20bless%20the%20child%3F
<a class="tweet-url username" href="http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=peter">peter</a> brown - The way I read it, dw does not advocate capitalism and is probably not the best place to do so other than it being a place where someone on the fence can come fix that pesky cognitive dissonance they are having. Myths about coops? Myth as to it being “good” or myth as to it being “bad”? I think the only myths we see here are those that are not seeing coops for the good that they really are or might be defining them improperly. As far as the Obamacare insurance market place, that is a bad example of what a coop should be and gives “coop” a bad name. I’m glad it was made an example so we can fix those erroneous definitions of “coop”. To say that coops fail based on that as a definition of coop is one reason why [email protected] exists.What I keep seeing which is very peculiar is how a capitalist society keeps enabling and wallowing in the never ending vicious cycle of poverty. Hence, we have “charity”. IMO, once coops, rightly defined and inclusive of both worker and consumer get going, charity will cease to exist. Poverty and hence charity is a by-product of capitalism and inequality. What I’m seeing is people locked into that dysfunctional “poverty conscious” relationship that capitalism has enabled. Society does not realize that poverty is NOT built into the human condition and is unequivocally tied to capitalism. Capitalism = poverty (inequality). A few people who stand the chance of becoming really wealthy while the majority of others go down the tubes is proof that this equation is completely accurate. Capitalism = privatization (private ownership). Privatization is just a different word for inequality. Another integral point and misnomer about people is they are unequal due to their lack of work ethic. I’ll save that for later.
http://www.grocer.coop/articles/why-some-co-ops-fail
“Once again, Peter Brown, for me, questions are real and hard. I look forward to keeping these conversations up.”
Yes! Yes. Let us do that and, I’m glad to see that I’m not being misunderstood for advocating Capitalism. I am indeed a wholehearted supporter of coops which, is why my questions and concerns reflect the social and political obstacles that confront most of us here on this site.
No ‘silver bullet’ for solutions to wage/earnings inequality that’s for sure. Like Standing Rock, a work in progress. Also please do not misunderstand me when I say that Mr. Wolff needs to think this one out a little more. He’s fighting for me. I can only have respect and admiration for all the work he’s done.
It will take a lot of time, work, tenacity and faith to unravel all the myths about coops. Hopefully, these links will help us to sift through the gauntlet of greed and disproportion imposed upon us all who, would like to see the playing field leveled. You can only inspire socio-economic and political change. It can no longer be forced and thrust upon the citizenry as, has been the case for centuries and decades in the past and at Standing Rock today.
Thanks again, hope this helps.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GTPM_enUS653US653&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=why%20coops%20have%20failed
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2015/dec/1847_corlette_why_are_many_coops_failing.pdf
I have no doubts that coop workers can endure the wage pressures that capitalist workers endure and hence be “competitive”. At this point it is irrelevant whether we are talking coop or a capi. What we should be looking at is, all things being equal, where to find balance. Let’s take the following equation, cost of production + cost of management – revenue = P&L (to the “owners”). Let’s plug in the numbers for a capi and a coop and see what happens. Capi – 25+25-100= profit of 50. Coop – 25+5-100= profit of 70.
As you can see, regardless of wage pressures, a coop will every time be more profitable due to “paying management less” (step 1) and give the worker more disposable income due to shifting that difference to the worker/owners (step 2). The difference NOT payed to management (20) and the shift of ownership is really the basis of our coop worker benefit. Now, the worker/owners, without sacrificing overall company profit of 50, have 45 which means they have more money to take home while having a nest egg or loan source to boot. In fact, if capi companies just distributed less to their CEOs and gave it to their employees they would probably be able to extend their capitalist-owner reign for a little while longer (I should be quiet right? LOL).
What I have found at every job I’ve worked is how the “owners”, no matter size of company, usually have a really expensive house and car and boat and a second house, car and boat etc. etc. In all cases, shifting the profit (surplus) away from the singular Godhead owner/managers back to the workers has now evened the playing field “without sacrificing management efficiency”. The entire moral of this story is by cutting management costs and plugging those savings and profits back into worker/owners, balance is achieved. I am of the opinion that once the working class can tangibly see the raw benefits of being a coop member vs an employee (if given the chance), critical mass will ensue and the capitalist will in no way shape or form be able to “compete” since nobody in their right mind will want to work for “him/her”.
I believe cultural change will change the understanding. That is a lot of work. As we shift the cultural understanding about costs, prices etc we will shift into a different universe. In fact, when I watch documentaries about ppl who work at worker coops they talk about these shifts clearly.
Change is messy. With all deep respect, it is never going to be one person telling us what to do. We cannot only rely on Prof. Wolff finding all the answers. I am saying this because earlier Peter Brown commented “I dare say that Mr. Wolff needs to think this one out a little more”. We all have think and more so do while tinkering with the theoretical precision. I like all the hard question Peter Brown is posing. For me, you are raising question about how to change mind set. For me, Mom and Pop stores with the same mentality of doing business is not same as coops. There is a nuance there.
In my community, ppl in low- middle income and/or PoC are looking for meaningful work where they are respected and valued. Yes, for a while we are Salmon running upsteam. Think about Standing Rock, amazing ppl are all Salmons, for sure. I only was at Standing Rock for 8-9 days, I could feel/observe cultural difference.
Once again, Peter Brown, for me, questions are real and hard. I look forward to keeping these conversations up.
In theory, it’s actually very civil and sensible. I voted for Jill Stein not because I thought she would win but, instead, because I believe in the values she stands for. But in practice, eventually, and my point is specifically, that over time, the coop has to compete with free market systems to keep their costs down to levels the average consumer is capable or prepared to pay for the service or product. It’s exactly why consumers choose to buy at Walmart and other big box and discount stores. They’re shopping their wallets and pocketbooks. Today, and especially today, consumers are buying to fulfill their needs. Not their desires. Weather it’s food, clothing or any other survival specific purchase. ‘Why Pay More’ being the key phrase. They (we) no longer have disposable incomes to shop our desires. Maybe, this is a good thing for coops to take advantage of.
If a coop can compete with the prices those big box stores and Walmarts of the world can offer, then yes, look for a coop near you to furnish all your utilitarian needs. Can coops be a social solution for the economically disenfranchised? Or to put it bluntly, the low and middle classes? But then, so were the ‘Mom & Pop’ stores corporate monsters like Walmart displaced.
I’m not sure if we’re trying to reinvent the wheel here or, swimming upstream like the Salmon. What I am sure of is, coops have succeeded and failed miserably through the decades and even centuries with no reasonable explanation as to why and how come. They’ve never really been sustainable. The Mondragonian route should teach us how to make coops more sustainable. The question is, has it?
I appreciate this opportunity to voice my opinions and concerns.
Having said that, there’s no reason a campaign to disintegrate Capitalism at it’s core and replace it with a Federally observed system of checks and balances within a ‘fair’ market economic environment can’t be possible. Then you need to appoint someone who will determine what is ‘fair’ in this scenario.
So yes. There are coops that can and do function here and there. But eventually, the ‘free’ markets will begin to overwhelm the ‘fair’ markets, that coops are so reliant upon.
I dare say that Mr. Wolff needs to think this one out a little more.. The ‘thing’ that separates fair markets from free markets will be the determining factor that will allow coops on a large scale to develop and thrive in the US and other ‘Democratic’ societies.
Eventually, some of them will come back. I have also been a big believer of worker ownership. Studied a little bit while working on my Ph.D in economics, feminist economics in particular. I/we need support from coop community to start the first worker owned housing collective in Utah. To me, support looks like connecting with all kinds of resources: experiences, financial capital. I have been to few webinars so far. Also done quite a bit of research thru [email protected] and other online sources in U.S. and EU. I don’t know how to move this forward. I am stuck. I know that our community needs and wants it.
These are not so much economic issues as they are embedded in the fabric of morality. And, you can reverse this by stating that, these are not so much economic issues as they are moral issues. Of course, it’s been proven many times, many ways that, you can not legislate morality. You can’t make people cooperate with each other. Therefore, it’s doubtful that, sharing corporate or company profits equally and fairly is possible and sustainable.
I’m also not convinced that two systems IE., Capitalism (anti socialism) and Socialism can share the same stage.
A Coop needs to be able to verify on a regular basis, it’s earnings and expenditures to the work force of the company with no slight-of-hand. When/if the company execs violate these trusts, the ‘system’ needs to be able to prosecute with impunity. This has never happened in history as I’m aware.
As long as I am on this post, let me add a couple of comments of a more general nature. Over the years as I read or re-read Bertrand Russel, I am amazed at how contemporary his comments and analyses have been. I suggest his book Roads to Freedom Unwin Books 1966 editions.
On another topic that may be more controversial, using the term capitalism always in a negative connotation may not be in the best interest of a broad movement that supports a employee owned business. There certainly are real problems with capitalism, but on a practical level most working people at one time or another either see some benefits from their investments or have been condition to equate anti-capitalism with either communism or being anti-American. The semantic issue of the term can bypassed by specifically labeling the problem as corporate abuse of power.