Co-operatives and Anarchism
Jul 26 2006 03:40
I've been thinking about co-ops for a while now, and anarchism more recently. Like a lot of ideas i had before coming across anarchism, I find them to be kind of anarchist in nature. So are co-operatives anarchist in nature? Or could they be a good way of developing grass roots anarchism? Do/have anarchists pursued co-operatives? They seem to me atleast as a practical way to organise people into organisations controlled by workers. Plus they have a long history, and sound so much less intimidating to people. "Do you want to start a co-op" sounds to me to be more likely to get a positive response than "Do you want to start an anarchist collective" Thoughts? Nick
Jul 26 2006 10:00
#2
Joseph K. wrote:
Thus co-ops in capitalism are still subordinate to the logic of capital (constant self-expansion), and they preclude opportunities for class struggle which could challange capitalism itself
Exactly - for example, workers at say a clothing company could strike against wage cuts if there is a dip in the market (thus showing that the economy and workers have nothing in common). Workers at a clothing co-op couldn't do this, they would just have to cut their own wages, or lay some of themselves off.
Jul 26 2006 10:56
#3
Hi
Quote:
for example, workers at say a clothing company could strike against wage cuts if there is a dip in the market (thus showing that the economy and workers have nothing in common). Workers at a clothing co-op couldn't do this, they would just have to cut their own wages, or lay some of themselves off.
That's correct, but seeing as they're going to get laid off anyway, all working in a conventional company has done is put the workers through the extra demoralising inconvenience of a strike plus no opportunity to dictate the terms of their redundancy plus no method to redeploy (or indeed raise) capital towards a market that might pay their way. The critique of self-management as self-management of your own exploitation is correct, but hardly an argument for, say, AK Press to reinstall a conventional capitalist management structure. Love LR
Jul 26 2006 19:19
#4
Convert wrote:
Do/have anarchists pursued co-operatives?
I kinda missed this except for the Proudhon historical stuff. Current basically anarchist co-ops include AK Press www.akpress.org & www.akuk.com and South End Press www.southendpress.org - both publishers.
Jul 27 2006 01:12
#5
The class struggle view would argue that capitalism is riven with contradictions that cannot neccessarily be reconciled into a stable order, and that the force capable of rupturing the capitalist order is class struggle. But when you work for a co-op within capitalism, you have no boss to struggle against, yet you have to comply with the 'alien' force of capital all the same - you are forced to literally be your own boss (even bosses have to follow 'the market' or go out of businesss). Thus co-ops in capitalism are still subordinate to the logic of capital (constant self-expansion), and they preclude opportunities for class struggle which could challange capitalism itself (although they could theoretically support class struggle more broadly, e.g. a printers co-op spending profits from capitalist customers on subsidised radical literature). Good call, what about co-ops working with other co-ops? Which raises the question - if you some how manage to remove your self from captitalism through a whole bunch of worker owned/managed co-ops (or some other method) - has removing yourself aided to the overthrough of capitalism by denying it manpower and revenue from products now produced by your co-op. Or strenthened it as now it doesn't have to worry about a bunch of radicals messing with it?
Jul 27 2006 08:55
#6
Convert wrote:
Which raises the question - if you some how manage to remove your self from captitalism through a whole bunch of worker owned/managed co-ops (or some other method) - has removing yourself aided to the overthrough of capitalism by denying it manpower and revenue from products now produced by your co-op. Or strenthened it as now it doesn't have to worry about a bunch of radicals messing with it?
But you haven't removed yourself from "capitalism", co-ops are still totally subject to the whims of the market
Jul 27 2006 09:05
#7
Though having said that,assuming an anarchist set-up, they're probably slightly more robust (more capacity to save for a rainy day through funds not appropriated by higher management) and of course there is a greater say over who to work with (eg. they might take a lower profit in order to do a public good or to help an allied group just starting out in times of plenty rather than throwing higher payouts to the shareholders). Yes co-ops are subject, ultimately to the market, but they are also often more flexible within that framework.
Jul 27 2006 09:29
#8
Convert wrote:
what about co-ops working with other co-ops?
I'd say if our goal is an anarchist society (of the libertarian communist variety), there are real possibilities, but ones with very clear limits. I think beyond effectively political workers co-ops (e.g. the publishers i mentioned) there is very little scope for a class perspective, since the everyday experiences through which we become aware of ourselves as workers in an alien machine are largley absent in a co-op (bosses etc). Networks of publishers (AK, South End), researchers (Corporate Watch) etc could have some use, but i don't see co-ops as a way of 'building the new world in the shell of the old' (see below).
Convert wrote:
Which raises the question - if you some how manage to remove your self from captitalism through a whole bunch of worker owned/managed co-ops (or some other method) - has removing yourself aided to the overthrough of capitalism by denying it manpower and revenue from products now produced by your co-op. Or strenthened it as now it doesn't have to worry about a bunch of radicals messing with it?
The bolded bit is the crux - if you can remove yourself from capitalism then networks of co-ops represent a 'dual power' situation where anarchic organisation directly confronts capitalism. However, i don't think capital has an 'outside', since its less a system and more a social relation between people.* In reality, a network of co-ops would (for a long time at least) need to interact with capitalist firms in a market in order to obtain the required inputs, and to sell outputs to fund this (EDIT: although see Saii's comment above). This situation could only cease when capitalist firms controlled a minority of the world's key resources. So how could such a situation come about? If we set up co-ops to out-compete capitalist firms we merely over-exploit ourselves and undercut the conditions of other workers. If we seize large sections of the means of production, like the Argentinean occupied factory movement on a bigger scale - why settle for workers co-ops and not social revolution? As a related point, I had some 'lean manufacturing' training yesterday - it seems capital is actively embracing organisational forms ever closer to co-ops (although with the neccessary hierarchy of ownership). I don't think it's impossible to see a kind of co-op economy as a good thing for capital in that it (a) harnesses the productivity gains of autonomy, (b) further eliminates the possibilities for class struggle, (c) creates a 'classless' but meritocratic market society dedicated to the constant expansion of capital - all that would be needed was methods to assure continuous accumulation - for that there's market competition, repayment of loans, part-worker ownership etc. In fact, this could be capital's panacaea - human desires would still be slaves to capital's perpetual self-expansion. * I think this understanding of the nature of capital is a major theoretical break between the 'anti-capitalist' movement (from Naomi Klein to the anti-summit anarchists, CrimethInc etc) and those with a more explicitly class struggle perspective, or in other words between liberal-leftism and libertarian communism.
Jul 27 2006 09:22
#9
Hi
John. wrote:
But you haven't removed yourself from "capitalism", co-ops are still totally subject to the whims of the market
Being subject to the whims of the market and being inside capitalism are not the same. The USSR had no markets, and yet was authentically capitalist. You deserve some philosophical slack, though, in so far as they’re still within capitalism, totally subject to the whims of the bourgeoisie; paying tax, having markets manipulated by capitalist interests etc etc.
Convert” wrote:
if you some how manage to remove your self from captitalism through a whole bunch of worker owned/managed co-ops (or some other method) - has removing yourself aided to the overthrough of capitalism by denying it manpower and revenue from products now produced by your co-op. Or strenthened it as now it doesn't have to worry about a bunch of radicals messing with it?
Well it depends what you do. A self managed power generator supplying free electricity is obviously going to damage the capitalist system more than a self managed artists collective exhibiting work on the creative poverty of the money system. Love LR
Jul 27 2006 11:16
#10
This statement on co-operatives was produced some time back by the ASF in Ireland (now part of the current Organise!). On Josepk K's point on class perspective - surely some workers establish co-operatives due to their negative experience of working for an employer, so the class perspective is there to an extent in such cases? We shouldn't make the mistake of seeing co-operatives as providing a vehicle for social revolutionary change, they can potentially strengthen a libertarian communist movement, but they are not 'immune' from the capitalist society they exist within. The biggest danger is one that can be levelled at lifestylism, and that is where those involved make the mistake that their co-operative venture is (or could be if enough people copied them) the negation of capital, is revolutionary, in and of itself. And as Joseph K puts it capitalism does not have an 'outside'. Its probably an over generous statement, the Spanish example is a bit of a stretch, but it does refer to some of the issues raised: COLLECTIVES/CO-OPERATIVES The workers Co-operative and Collectivist movement is generally a positive, although not uniform, development within the confines of capitalism and state jurisdiction. The Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation recognises that this movement is based on a rejection of the capitalist division between non-workers, bosses and workers and we applaud this attempt at creating more direct democratic working relationships. We believe that this creation of new social relations in such areas as production, housing, distribution and retail has the potential to aid in the revolutionary struggle to build a new world within the shell of the old. We remember that many of the greatest achievements of the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement are based in the kind of voluntary collectivisation which was at the heart of the libertarian revolution in Spain 1936-39. Workers Co-ops and Collectives counter capitalist notions and structures, providing an example to workers in other areas of how their workplaces and working lives could be changed when they organise and rid themselves of bosses. As such they must avoid isolationism striving instead to make links with the wider movement to replace capitalism with a direct democratic alternative based on solidarity and mutual aid. The Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation pledges active support and encouragement to the development of workers co-ops and collectives which are based on or developing towards voluntarism, where all workers have equal wages, were decisions are based on equality and direct democracy, hierarchy is abolished and which directly challenge the capitalist concepts of corporate and private property. We oppose any action by any workers or consumer co-operative/collective which impacts negatively on other workers in the same industry, for example ‘under cutting’ which might undermine wages in any given industry, or contracting with exploitative companies, or companies with workers in dispute, etc. We demand that co-operatives/collectives of any type respect and honour any picket line, boycott, blacking etc., by any and all unions or body of workers in struggle. Worker solidarity and the building of a collective culture are essential to the task of replacing capitalism and are part and parcel of the Anarcho-Syndicalist project.
Jul 27 2006 11:35
#11
<p>Hi Boul,</p><p> </p><p>I didn't think ASF used to put out statements very often (though I could of course be completely wrong on that!).</p><p> </p><p>Was there any particular reason for this one? </p>
Jul 27 2006 12:05
#12
<p>
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
On Josepk K's point on class perspective - surely some workers establish co-operatives due to their negative experience of working for an employer, so the class perspective is there to an extent in such cases?
</p><p>Agreed, but what i was trying to say (not very clearly) with the point about "effectively <em>political</em>" co-ops was this - that any class perspective comes from the external experience of the members, and typically this is means radical ideological founders give way later to a sort of lifestylist setup, since the unspoken assumption is 'we had shit experiences, set up a co-op, so could everyone else'. Thus i think co-ops <em>tend </em>to foster individualistic, lifestylist, petty-bourgoise subjectivities. Thats not a hard and fast rule though. And, I could of course be talking shit 
</p><p> </p><p>
The Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation wrote:
Workers Co-ops and Collectives counter capitalist notions and structures, providing an example to workers in other areas of how their workplaces and working lives could be changed when they organise and rid themselves of bosses.
</p><p>This is an important point, but it cuts both ways. An example of a fuctioning horizontally organised workplace disproves the idea we need hierarchies to organise complex tasks (and thus society), but should co-ops become mere self-managed exploitation at the whims of capitalist markets, they could send out the signal "this is as good as it gets", which is profoundly counter-revolutionary (ICC bonus point for that word ). That said, i moved away from liberal-leftism because of a combination of a shit job and examples like Zanon/FaSinPat in Argentina, before i'd even heard of libertarian communism 
<br /></p><p> </p>
Jul 27 2006 21:40
#13
Quote:
This is an important point, but it cuts both ways. An example of a fuctioning horizontally organised workplace disproves the idea we need hierarchies to organise complex tasks (and thus society), but should co-ops become mere self-managed exploitation at the whims of capitalist markets, they could send out the signal "this is as good as it gets", which is profoundly counter-revolutionary (ICC bonus point for that word ). That said, i moved away from liberal-leftism because of a combination of a shit job and examples like Zanon/FaSinPat in Argentina, before i'd even heard of libertarian communism
Ok so there is a risk it would all turn to shit, but wouldnt that be the case for any initiative? I mean if we want a different society we have to build some alterntative structures dont we? Is the risk greater for a co-op than anything else we could do?
Jul 27 2006 21:47
#14
Quote:
As a related point, I had some 'lean manufacturing' training yesterday - it seems capital is actively embracing organisational forms ever closer to co-ops (although with the neccessary hierarchy of ownership). I don't think it's impossible to see a kind of co-op economy as a good thing for capital in that it (a) harnesses the productivity gains of autonomy, (b) further eliminates the possibilities for class struggle, (c) creates a 'classless' but meritocratic market society dedicated to the constant expansion of capital - all that would be needed was methods to assure continuous accumulation - for that there's market competition, repayment of loans, part-worker ownership etc. In fact, this could be capital's panacaea - human desires would still be slaves to capital's perpetual self-expansion.
God is there anything capitalism wont co-opt?
Sometimes i think capitalism is too fluid a system to be effectively resisted, and the best we can hope for is keeping other ideas alive until capital itself provides opportunity to replace it. Or maybe im just a pessimist.
Jul 27 2006 22:10
#15
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, i'm probably reacting against over-optimism i may have previously had
I don't think capitalism has an infinite capacity to co-opt, i think class struggle can rupture its order, and i'm very positive of that despite the low levels of (visible) class struggle in the UK at the moment. In fact i think we probably should support anarchist-style co-ops, critically and with an awareness of their (potential) limitations, but support them nonetheless. Too often critique and waryness of co-option can lead to paralysis, and maybe my comments above implied this? As long as we don't see building a co-op movement as a substitute for class struggle it may well prove more effective propaganda for anarchist organisation than any number of pamphlets - and maybe provide some useful infrastructure to boot
Jul 28 2006 16:04
#16
Yeah I reckon I'm with you on that Joseph K.
Jul 30 2006 12:59
#17
jack white wrote:
<p>Hi Boul,</p><p> </p><p>I didn't think ASF used to put out statements very often (though I could of course be completely wrong on that!).</p><p> </p><p>Was there any particular reason for this one? </p>
We did put out agreed statements - they were based on proposals to our annual conference. You may not have been aware of all of them but I'd certainly thought you'd be aware of the women's commission statement and the statement on sectarianism and the north.
This one came may have been issued at a time when we were working more closely with some people involved in collective projects.
Jul 30 2006 13:19
#18
Nah the ASF was a know nothing workerist group that could never raise it's nose from it's pay slip long enough to have an opinion on the outside world. Just as it never "dealt with the issue of sectarianism" etc etc.
Aug 31 2006 10:23
#19
There are anarchists littered throughout the British co-op/mutualist movement.
I see the co-operative movement as revolutionary - in that it builds closer community links, and inspires working class power, when grown to a considerable size.
Sucesfulll models, such as Mondragon, are perhaps the closest example to functioning anarchist communities - mutually supportive, self financing, where workers are empowerred, and politically independent.
There was a thread with some of the arguments here:
http://libcom.org/node/5502
Also of interest in regard to revolutionary co-operation is this article, which outlines the Venezuelan model of workers co-ops currently being rolled out by Chavez;
This is the key theoretical article (well worth reading):
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lebowitz241005.html
plus more stuff here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10825
or
Aug 31 2006 10:33
#20
our content on co-ops here:
http://libcom.org/tags/co-operatives
Sep 1 2006 02:01
#21
I think workers' cooperatives are very important for the following reasons:
1) They provide a real, concrete example of workers' self-management, and prove it can work.
2) They improve workers bargaining power by providing better alternatives. If workers can go and join a coop, it puts pressure on capitalist workplaces to compete for labour = improved conditions. Good in the short term, although not revolutionary.
3) If consciously anarchist, these cooperatives could play crucial roles in supplying strikes with supplies etc.
Sep 1 2006 08:53
#22
josephk wrote:
i don't think capital has an 'outside', since its less a system and more a social relation between people
I have to disagree on the idea of capital having no outside, because it is a set of social relations - if we accept this then the concept is meaningless - and, rightly, everything that people do can simply be interpreted as co-optation, whether it helps capital or not.
For me, capital is a massive concentration of social power through the ownership of very large amounts of property (be it fixed or fluid). Capitalism is the description of a society in which capital is the predominant form of power.
If we define it in this way, then it's more easy to see certain actions - like building co-ops - as acting to dilute (and therefore acting to the detriment of, and not being a cooptation by) capital. (of course, sometimes co-ops are co-opted, or act to the benefit of capital - this I don't doubt).
Sep 1 2006 09:01
#23
the problem is that co-op workers are forced to think like capitalists in order to survive in a capitalist world. its not that i oppose co-ops, but i don't think they constitute an 'outside', otherwise class becomes a voluntary category, and all we have to do is setup a co-op and we're out of the class struggle.
Sep 1 2006 10:00
#24
I think co-ops may, or may not, constitute an outside - the point being that we have to accept that capitalism has an inside and an outside - otherwise the concept is meaningless, I think
Sep 1 2006 10:03
#25
john wrote:
I think co-ops may, or may not, constitute an outside - the point being that we have to accept that capitalism has an inside and an outside - otherwise the concept is meaningless, I think
This is pure idiocy. Where is this outside?
How can capitalism be meaningless without an outside? Saying there is no outside does not mean there is no oppsoition, no contradictions, rather it means that it's fault lines are within it, the barbarian hordes aren't camped outside its gates but are at it's very heart.
Sep 1 2006 10:05
#26
i don't think so. capitalism as a social relation is a totality, it has to be ruptured and transformed*, i don't think it can simply be evaded. Thats not to say co-ops can't potentially provide all sorts of useful help to the class struggle from subsidised publishing to material support for strikes etc.
* not in a reformist way, as in aufhebung, but i'd sound like a twat saying that. oops.
Sep 1 2006 10:10
#27
Joseph K. wrote:
i don't think so. capitalism as a social relation is a totality, it has to be ruptured and transformed*, i don't think it can simply be evaded. Thats not to say co-ops can't potentially provide all sorts of useful help to the class struggle from subsidised publishing to material support for strikes etc.* not in a reformist way, as in aufhebung, but i'd sound like a twat saying that. oops.
hmm depends what you mean by totality though. There is no outside, but it is not a completely closed circuit, otherwise it would have swallowed it's own tail.
Sep 1 2006 10:15
#28
revol wrote:
This is pure idiocy. Where is this outside?How can capitalism be meaningless without an outside? Saying there is no outside does not mean there is no oppsoition, no contradictions, rather it means that it's fault lines are within it, the barbarian hordes aren't camped outside its gates but are at it's very heart.
The outside exists in the activities we do that don't act to further the concentration of capital.
The alternative is to call everything capitalism, in which case, how can it be helpful as a term? What does it explain?
What is capitalism?
Everything.
What are you against?
Everything
What don't you like about it
Everything
What form of opposition is most appropriate?
Anything/Nothing
How does capitalism operate?
In changing and contradictory ways, it creates ever-new forms, with ever new forms of opposition
Oh, you mean it's everything?
Sep 1 2006 10:14
#29
revol68 wrote:
hmm depends what you mean by totality though. There is no outside, but it is not a completely closed circuit, otherwise it would have swallowed it's own tail.
i'm not saying its closed, in fact theres definately an "open dialectic" (in shortall's terms) which allows the possibility of rupture and aufhebung.
Sep 1 2006 10:22
#30
is the term universe meaningless if nothing is beyond it?
you're building straw men. capitalism is not 'everything', unlike the universe it is a social relation reproduced by human action every day and it can be abolished.
john wrote:
The outside exists in the activities we do that don't act to further the concentration of capital.
which leads to dumpster-diving, tourist mugging and even 9-11ing as a revolutionary strategy. we can't just voluntarily place ourselves outside of capital (and thus class struggle). To try and be outside class struggle is impossible, the storm doesn't stop on account of you sitting on a fence (or outside it ). Co-ops neccessarily act in class struggle, either by internalising the capitalist values neccessary to survive in a competitive market, by pushing their own petty-bourgeois agenda or by aiding proletarian struggles in the ways aforementioned, there's no neutral or outside point.
Insofar as they are organised internally according to anarchist principles (direct democracy/mandated recallable delegates etc), then co-ops are anarchist. Proudhon's ("property is theft") strategy was largely based on building co-ops (and support structures like a 'people's bank') - a modern example could be the Mondragon Corporacion Cooprativa in Spain (I don't know much about it though, but it's huge and has its own bank etc). However, Proudhon was criticised by Marx (and most class struggle anarchists would follow Marx here) for being "petit bourgoise", i.e. simply advocating everyone gets to be a small business/small capitalist of their own, thus failing to challenge capitalism in its totality. The class struggle view would argue that capitalism is riven with contradictions that cannot neccessarily be reconciled into a stable order, and that the force capable of rupturing the capitalist order is class struggle. But when you work for a co-op within capitalism, you have no boss to struggle against, yet you have to comply with the 'alien' force of capital all the same - you are forced to literally be your own boss (even bosses have to follow 'the market' or go out of businesss). Thus co-ops in capitalism are still subordinate to the logic of capital (constant self-expansion), and they preclude opportunities for class struggle which could challange capitalism itself (although they could theoretically support class struggle more broadly, e.g. a printers co-op spending profits from capitalist customers on subsidised radical literature). So you can certainly say co-ops are basically anarchist, though they are not really revolutionary either. The Industrial Workers of the World had something about co-ops on their site (iww.org) but i can't find it right now.