From the recent Bad Faith podcast. Gonna read up on them. Seems like a decent first step towards full communism, with the added benefit of I don't think people have an immune response to the term.
"Democratize the workforce" is pretty close to "seize the means of production". I'll take it, for now.
I might be a huge lib, but can someone explain the difference between an enterprise where the workers are the owners and share the profits (co-op) and one where the workers own the means of production?
Well, if you believe Lenin, this is pure “economism” - focusing purely on the battle between workers and employers. The fight between workers and employers is just part of the struggle for socialism. He considered this kind of narrow minded approach opportunism.
If you’re a “socialist” and not talking about the abolition of wage labour and proletarian control of the state as WELL as the workplace, you’re playing against the bourgeoisie on their own turf, by their own rules. Let’s say a bunch of private prison workers somehow “democratised their workplace” - it’s done nothing to change the prison industrial complex, except slightly rearranging who gets which slice of the pie.
Not to say that co-ops are bad, they’re a marginal improvement on the alternative, but I find it mildly concerning that someone who is clearly as intelligent as Wolfe seems to think this is the be all and end all of socialist agitation. I don’t know if it’s some kind of tactical consideration he’s made to “start small”, but if he has I suggest he read What Is To Be Done? because Lenin was calling that shit out 120 years ago.
Wolfe has mentioned that he doesnt see co-ops as the end goal, but a starting point for socialism. I would agree with him.
Still not seeing a difference between a group of workers owning their own business and the socialist "workers owning the means of production" as described by Marx.
I get what you're describing is a move towards a centralized and controlled economy- but in a market-based society, why would workers choose to pay themselves less than they produce in value if they are the owners and decision makers at their company.
This is a step for socialism, towards full on communism. In my opinion.
“The workers owning the means of production” doesn’t mean “these specific workers at this one business owning this specific business”. If one auto plant becomes a co-op, they don’t control the mine, or the smelting plant, or the place where the electronics are made, or the transport chain that gets the materials to the plant, or the distribution network that disperses the finished product. They’re still just one tiny “worker owned” cog in a bourgeois machine. It’s essentially the same as big capitalist enterprises integrating petit-bourgeois small tradesmen into their operations, which is a thing that happens already.
Not to mention I have a feeling that co-ops would eventually be squeezed out of the market, like any other petit-bourgeois element, they will eventually be proletarianised.
Ok, so what if the smelter were worker owned, and the mine, and the electronics manufacturer, and the transport company? That is better, right? Even if they are operating in a market based economy?
Are the different co-ops all “co-operating” with each other, or are they in competition? Are the smelters trying to squeeze as much profit as they can from the auto workers? Are the transporters trying to squeeze the rest of the supply chain? Because if they are, congrats, you just invented capitalism with more steps.
But it isn’t though if the whole supply chain is coops? Squeezing will result in much more effective socially needed labor contraction/wage equalization. As one labor place becomes too highly compensated, it would spawn a second shop in market paradigm.
I think industries were this is not true is only extremely high tech sector (precision instruments/silicon manufacturing/space), where labor education takes decade plus. The issue wouldn’t be competition up and down chain, it would be exclusively top of the chain in imaginary market-economy coops.
I mean, yes, they are trying to lower the price of goods. And yes, this is a market-based system, so the balance of income for the co-op, distributed among its workers to pay suitable amounts, with affordability of the products will happen. But without the bourgeois ownership, without the leeches stealing surplus value, there is likely room for price changes while still providing the workers with their value.
Isnt this desirable? Workers would see increases in income, and products would potentially decrease in price. Or go up.
Anyway, I see what you're saying, but I think it is significantly different without the leeching class stealing value across the entire supply chain.
And no, its not capitalism with more steps - worker power is a real thing in this situation, and where is the capitalist class?
Ehhh, critical support of co-ops.
On a micro-level, there isn't much difference between a co-op & a labor syndicate. Lots of different ways to (quasi)democratically structure a workplace.
On a macro-level, co-ops still function as defacto capitalist entities, They're still working within a framework of commodity production and market trading. While usually less exploitive than a similar capitalist enterprises, making the workers their own exploiters still leads to contradictions eventually.
deleted by creator
The missing piece of this theory though is “how does a co-op grow to the level of being compete with multinational capitalist enterprise”? I find your comment interesting and hadn’t thought of it through that lens, I particularly like the idea that co-operatives almost demystify capitalist relations of production by revealing “the market” itself to be the cause of contradiction, not “bosses” as such.
But so many comments here are skipping to a stage of play where co-ops control the majority of the economy. I don’t know how that happens unless, I dunno, Apple and Google employees somehow seize their workplace and transform it into a co-op.
Does Wolfe have any particular plan of how to co-operatise the entire capitalist economy?
deleted by creator
It doesn't make sense to me that workers would exploit themselves -when there is noone at the top taking their surplus value. They would take it.
It’s not themselves they would be exploiting sure. Well, let’s say they make tantal capacitors, a) would they care about supply chain? B) if they do, what would happen if they’ve tried to ethically source it? C) do they benefit from patent system and trade deals?
if the whole world collapsed into coops that would be fine, as it will quickly equalize value/labor relationship, sans military/trade deals, would be nice. So largely positive, but critical support
Well this is the point, any principled worker operated business would be immediately pushed out of the market by bigger enterprises with lower costs who are A) exploiting their workers directly and B) exploiting workers further down the production chain either directly or indirectly
Nah exploiting their workers is precisely the opposite effect, as coop can provide higher salaries, if everything else is the same, the owner doesn’t take their chunk away. The source exploitation is much bigger issue, I agree.
Edit: also capitalist sugar sponsor can make competing business operate at significant loss to outlive them, now that I’m thinking about uber:(
deleted by creator
Well, that’s largely the issue with military, no? Which is why there is an inherent danger to socdem policies without anti-imperialism largely. They could just vote for the guy(*or gal) who will fund some paramilitary in some country to bash some skulls.
deleted by creator
In capitalist framework the solution via tnc is even more obvious, it is exactly what neolibs harp on about, except they ignore imperialism: investing in countries where labor is cheap causes them to not become so cheap, and profit rates of investment to gradually equalize across the world, and then drop to 0, ushering something akin to worldwide crisis of capitalism. Two issues here are: power imbalance by means of guns (which neolibs are oh so happy to ignore), which can freeze this process completely as we see in global south, and two: we don’t have time, because climate change :(. The mechanics of the process, be it gradual spread of coops (I don’t think it would be unsuccessful tbh) or sudden worldwide rebellion are kinda two steps ahead of the central issues, as I see them (but may be I’m too third worldism pilled). But still, preliminary work on coops is great, so.
In a vacuum, sure, but you're skipping to the end-game of a capital market. Unless a co-op has a monopoly, the nature of the capitalist system they're in will still end up influencing their decisions, sometimes in downright anti-social ways.
If there are two competing co-ops, one whose workers are willing to vote themselves a paycut in order to out-price the competition will win. Faced with a recession, the one that decides to democratically slow production and/or fire their comrades will win(maybe they'll draw straws?). Co-ops still must respond to market forces or die. Faced with a lawsuit, or environmental regulation, or whatever really, the logic of co-ops is scarcely different from capitalist firms.
Exactly - what happens if your co-op is big enough to start become a monopoly, etc.? It’s still operating in the same sphere as any other capitalist enterprise. Plus, can the workers really be said to “own the means of production” when it is so tenuous - for example the bourgeois state could just make a law banning co-ops under some pretence or other.
Tbh large company=monopoly is a common misunderstanding. Gigantic companies like Walmart or GE still compete with other gigantic companies with the same intensity as small businesses do. It's why the law of value is still valid today, despite like 1000 companies controlling 80% of all capital.
I agree that taking state power is essential, like no way the ruling class is gonna let you have your peaceful co-op society even if it's 100% legal within their own framework.
Worker control.
Can you be more specific?
I misunderstood the question, ignore me
deleted by creator