NationStates Jolt Archive

To add another slant to the current debates about the theory and practice of socialism, I think this would be a good time for me to ask a question:

What would keep a cooperative from becoming a worker's "competitive"?

As far as I can tell, a co-op would be based on meetings and committees in which those who have a plan can put it forward, everyone can add their ideas to it and in the end there is a vote.

In cases in which there are resources to be handed out or otherwise allocated, this would lead people to push for the allocation they most prefer. In many cases (though not all), this might favour themselves or people or projects they particularly like.

I won't bother with whether or not an allocation so determined is economically/pareto efficient, and I suspect most socialists wouldn't be overly worried if it wasn't.

My question is: if a co-op session is about everyone trying to convince others to vote for an allocation that they particularly like, wouldn't that be a competitive situation? Rather than competing through skill in production, innovation or whatever else you need to succeed in a market economy, wouldn't the competition be in the form of debating skills and other, rather less acquirable skills (like looking good or having a nice-sounding voice)? Rather than "objective" criteria (such as maximising the output of widgets), wouldn't there simply be a shift towards subjective ones, and with it the problem that many people might simply prefer a dollar in the hand of Scarlett Johansson to one in the hand of that less attractive loner who never opens his mouth?

How would such a system present more fairness? And if we were to accept that it doesn't guarantee fairness but simply changes the inequality we observe, then why is an inequality based on social popularity or confidence in public speaking better than one based on productive capacity or entrepreneurial skill?

Charisma is always important when we're dealing with human decisionmaking--when a person has to persuade others to hire her or adopt her plan of action.

But just as the desire of shareholders for profit motivates them to use "objective" criteria to appoint management, the desire of members of a cooperative to secure their economic welfare motivates them to do the same.

But just as the desire of shareholders for profit motivates them to use "objective" criteria to appoint management, the desire of members of a cooperative to secure their economic welfare motivates them to do the same.
The operative word being "their". There's going to be some fraction >0% and <100% of people who will be trying to maximise their personal wellbeing at the expense of the cooperative. If they're the ones with the social skills, their co-workers can soon become their victims.

I have wondered this too. I have heard many leftists bemoan evidence that whites, men, handsome people, tall people, and many other arbitrary groups in general make more money under a capitalist system.

Their solution, of course, is to remove any incentive to judge based on merit and productivity and make economic distribution solely a matter of who can better negotiate for what they want.

This sort of democratic model is a sure way to produce an immense bureaucratic corporatism.

If they're the ones with the social skills, their co-workers can soon become their victims.

And this is different in capitalism how?

Their solution, of course, is to remove any incentive to judge based on merit and productivity

Not at all... not unless a radically egalitarian program that will make this element immaterial is adopted, anyway.

And this is different in capitalism how?
Maybe it isn't. Though the levels of hierarchy mean that decision-making circles are necessary limited to fewer and more educated individuals.

But I would have hoped the argument for co-ops was a little stronger than that.

Maybe it isn't. Though the levels of hierarchy mean that decision-making circles are necessary limited to fewer and more educated individuals.

There's nothing stopping cooperatives from instituting hierarchical management structures. (Though it's not necessarily a good idea.)

But I would have hoped the argument for co-ops was a little stronger than that.

The argument for co-ops is not that they negate the influence of charisma.

And this is different in capitalism how?

Despite your likely protestations, capitalism does not render one subjugated to public fawning over a charismatic speaker.

The more the public benefits those with arbitrary qualities, the more competitive advantage bestowed upon those who do not.

You can of course, do away with this by having competing democratic worker ran shops, which I don't oppose, but then you open yourself up to the same old unequal power relations as before, just it is collective against collective.

Not at all... not unless a radically egalitarian program that will make this element immaterial is adopted, anyway.

Productivity and merit can only be judged with comparative analysis of market data. You can't compare a person's performance when he doesn't compete, all you can do is be convinced that his performance is good enough through arbitrary factors.

My question is: if a co-op session is about everyone trying to convince others to vote for an allocation that they particularly like, wouldn't that be a competitive situation?


It might be. But then consensus and cooperation do not presume the absense of conflicts or differing interests. They presume a particular method for dealing with conflicts and differing interests when they inevitably occur.

That said, there is likely to be a high level of consensus in that the owners of a cooperative enterprise possess a great many common interests. Presumably they wish to be successful, both individually and as a collective enterprise. This is especially so since the personal profit of an individual is dependent upon the profit on the entire enterprise.

One thing I really like about the cooperative model is that it removes the "class war" sort of antagonism inherent in the usual Employer-Employee hierarchical relationship. There is bound to be a high level of antagonism were such a hierarchical situation is set up. This is so because one level of the hierarchy possesses the effective power over decision-making (Employer/Manager) and the other does not (Employee). The employer/manager will always suffer the temptation to exploit its position to its own advantage (lowering wages and less than optimal working conditions reduce costs, thus increasing income), and the employees will always suffer the temptation to do exactly the same in retaliation (excessive regulations that reduce productivity, the union, outright revolution).

At the very least, the cooperative provides a way to remove this huge source of antagonistic "competition" by transforming the vertical hierarchy into a horizontal plane of equal peers. The employer and employee become one and the same. As such, the class war is made obsolete as the classes have been abolished. Thus, the owners and operators of a cooperative can spend their time and resources improving the product and the enterprise, instead of wasting resources on coming up with schemes to stick it to the Man/Proles.

To say that a cooperative enterprise could never fall apart due to internal strife is, of course, completely unreasonable. But then businesses of all kinds fail on a regular basis, for all sorts of reasons, including internal strife or otherwise failing to produce, innovate, or otherwise succeed in the market. This is the nature of the beast.


Rather than "objective" criteria (such as maximising the output of widgets), wouldn't there simply be a shift towards subjective one's, and with it the problem that many people might simply prefer a dollar in the hand of Scarlett Johansson to one in the hand of that less attractive loner who never opens his mouth?


For the reasons explained above, this behavior is perhaps less likely to occur in the cooperative enterprise. At any rate, it has and does occur in the non-cooperative enterprise as well. Enron and Arthur Andersen, and any number of other examples can be found and pointed out. In fact, I'd suggest that such behavior is more likely in the typical Employer-Employee hierarchy as those conspiring to "shift toward subjective [criteria]" can take advantage of the privileged decision-making position of the employer/manager, once they secure access to it. EDIT: This is essentially the same argument for decentralization vis-a-vis the state or government. Reduce the power and extent of a given authority, and its ability to be abused to the benefit of whoever is automatically reduced.

Though the levels of hierarchy mean that decision-making circles are necessary limited to fewer and more ruthless individuals.

fixed.

The operative word being "their". There's going to be some fraction >0% and <100% of people who will be trying to maximise their personal wellbeing at the expense of the cooperative. If they're the ones with the social skills, their co-workers can soon become their victims.

A more broad/generalized observation would lead to the conclusion that human endeavors of any kind are prone to the machinations of those only looking out for their personal wellbeing at the expense of others. In this way, the cooperative is just like any other human endeavor, and is thus not exceptional.

Freedom includes (nay, requires) the possibility of failure. Even catastrophic failure. Life is a bitch like that. ;)

fixed.

But again, there is little difference between the two ideologies.

EDIT: The key is to say fuck the boss and fuck the democracy. That is anarchism, and socialism and capitalism do not apply.

Despite your likely protestations, capitalism does not render one subjugated to public fawning over a charismatic speaker.

No... just private fawning.

You can of course, do away with this by having competing democratic worker ran shops,

Or any other socialist system that involves a sort of "market" competition, of which there are many. Or just any system that involves holding people accountable by objective criteria, whether or not it involves markets.

You can't compare a person's performance when he doesn't compete

Not under the ordinary definition of "compete", no--that is to say, you can't compare a person's performance unless you have something to compare it with--but so what?

There's nothing stopping cooperatives from instituting hierarchical management structures. (Though it's not necessarily a good idea.)


A federation of constituent cooperatives or specific work groups perhaps. But it seems that the introduction of "hierarchical management structures" would go a long way toward introducing something other than a cooperative.


The argument for co-ops is not that they negate the influence of charisma.

Nothing short of radical lobotomy is going to accomplish such a goal. For anywhere or anything. Again, the cooperative isn't anything special when it comes to charisma.

No... just private fawning.

But I think we can agree that a higher percentage of groups fall victim to this sort of thing than individuals.

If on average 20% of individuals are "objective" in their judgments (the idea is a little silly in the first place), we can, at the same time guess that nearly 0% of collectives will be objectives. If we have collective democracy, those 20% who are "fair" will be victimized, under private enterprise, those 20% will have a distinct competitive advantage and will even entice the other 80% away from their prejudices.

Not under the ordinary definition of "compete", no--that is to say, you can't compare a person's performance unless you have something to compare it with--but so what?

So you are not comparing the performance of two candidates, you are comparing the two personalities.

When the two can compete against each other on the market, they are judged based on tangible utility they provide, when the two compete in democratic election, they are judged by aesthetic qualities.

Like NL said, it is no less competition, it is simply aesthetic competition.

If we have collective democracy, those 20% who are "fair" will be victimized

No... they will be the most successful, and others desiring the same will emulate them.

So you are not comparing the performance of two candidates, you are comparing the two personalities.

When the two can compete against each other on the market, they are judged based on tangible utility they provide, when the two compete in democratic election, they are judged by aesthetic qualities.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The relevant comparison for competing in democratic elections would be competing for a management position. The only difference there is the people to which one must appeal.

No... they will be the most successful, and others desiring the same will emulate them.

I have not seen the democracy where 20% of the people are successful against the other 80%.

I have also not seen the democracy where one voting group was able to convince the other side to join them without nearly complete failure of the system.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The relevant comparison for competing in democratic elections would be competing for a management position. The only difference there is the people to which one must appeal.

Yes, but once the manager is hired, there is no way to tell if he is doing a good job or not. It all depends on whether the workers like him.

I have not seen the democracy where 20% of the people are successful against the other 80%.

But in every democracy success brings popular support and failure brings popular disapproval. Just as successful managers gain the approval of the owners and unsuccessful ones do not (ideally.)

Yes, but once the manager is hired, there is no way to tell if he is doing a good job or not.

Justify that.