I'm a 100% an advocate for workplace democracy and think it would solve a lot of issues, like Richard Wolff, lays out here. However, these cooperative enterprises would still exist in a competitive market. They would still be subject to the same market pressures. A worker run factory that chooses to not use toxic chemical to increase efficiency would still be outcompeted by a less scrupulous factory that chooses to do so, regardless of if that choice was made democratically or not. That more ethical factory might fail, shutter up, cease existing for behaving ethically instead of "rationally" (according to the competetive environment they exist in). There would need to be structures (hopefully democratic) above the level of the workplace to regulate this.

@1anarquista.sensato

6 жыл бұрын

The supposed "outcompetition" of "less scrupulous factories" only truly happens because of the way the current system is structured to avoid and in fact suppress an in depth examination of the Actual costs of such business practices, which when they are accounted for will always reveal themselves to be more costly (environmentally, socially, etc) not less. Also, once you have a cooperative, then the majority of the workforce and their families will value the health of their community above the immediate financial gains of predatory businesses practices.

@itsacorporatething

6 жыл бұрын

I'll assume your point that every single worker cooperative will make the ethical choice and forgo profit to benefit the health of their community. Unless every single workplace economy-wide is simultaneously turned into a cooperative, cooperative workplaces will have to compete with non-cooperative workplaces in the market in the interim, transition period. They will on average be less successful (profitable) than the amoral, profit seeking, non-cooperative workplaces who are not constrained by ethics in pursuing profit. The cooperatives won't thrive or persist. Thus in my mind, Richard Wolff's proposal, of a gradual, evolutionary (not revolutionary) shift towards worker cooperatives is a non-starter. Additionally, even if every single workplace is a collective, there is the possibility of a reversion where by some means a single workplace is brought under private ownership, and we're back to the situation where the coops are at a disadvantage to this "invading mutant" of an amoral, privately owned enterprise. The solution is to either subsidize worker cooperatives so they can compete with private capital, or to penalize enterprises that engage in offloading costs to others (externalities, e.g. dumping waste into the river to let those downstream incur the cost) either by strict enforcement of laws, or by a tax that makes externalities internal. Second, I'm not sure worker owned businesses necessarily would always act ethically. They are only incentivized to avoid costs to their own communities; they could still, for example, dump waste downstream of themselves and screw over another community. I absolutely agree with you that "the current system is structured to avoid and in fact suppress an in depth examination of the Actual costs of such business practices." My point is that worker collectives only solve that problem locally, not globally. Externalities need to become internalities at all levels. I.E. there still needs to be a democratic governance structure above the level of the workplace to make that so.

@AdobadoFantastico

Жыл бұрын

When the things at stake are their own employment and community's well-being, they will search for alternatives. If an alternative doesn't exist, then there's no real choice and they'll default to whatever other corporations do. Also, this argument carries a presupposition that they need to make the same profits in order to be competitive. Which isn't true, they only need to provide a comparable good/service for a comparable cost. If they don't have as many execs they need to throw money at, the lower profits aren't necessarily a problem. If you get rid of a CEO who has 300x pay in a 300 person corporation, it frees up a LOT of financial room. Corporations are forced to seek profits because they're accountable to shareholders who's only interest is their shares.

Damn good speech.

This is real freedom.

Interesting, isn't it, that a few commentators below assume that Wolff - or anyone - is talking about taking enterprises by force? He has never said anything about force - that's your own fear talking, if that's what you hear! And your own ignorance of left-wing politics and economics - you probably think they start and end at the USSR!!

We shouldn’t accept tyrannical institutions in our society. People should have a say in the things that affect them - it’s called democracy. The institutions in society should be controlled democratically by the workers and the communities.

Voting for 3rd party candidates is not a wasted vote. Voting for Republicans and Democrats IS a wasted vote. Vote for 3rd party candidates, buy local, form Co-operative workplaces. But will anyone do this?

Democracy, lateralization; two terms absolutely inapplicable to the political and economic institutions in place today.

Its the next logical step forward Self managed capitalism lol , its about time. Forward , let's experiment and struggle forward a leap

@1anarquista.sensato

6 жыл бұрын

self-managed capitalism isn't capitalist at all. The socialization of the means of production inherent in cooperativism is literally (libertarian) socialism and always has been.

They largely are. People vote with their feet. No is forced to buy Apple products. If Apple products become too costly or people no longer like them, the company, large as it is, will have to either react to the loss in sales and make what the people want, or die off.