EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Economics: Doing Business As If People Mattered
When politicians talk economics these days, they argue a lot about the budget deficit. That's crucial to our economic future, but in the contemporary workplace there's an equally threatening problem -- the democracy deficit.
In an economy dominated by corporations, most people spend their work lives in hierarchical settings in which they have no chance to participate in the decisions that most affect their lives. The typical business structure is, in fact, authoritarian -- owners and managers give orders, and workers follow them. Those in charge would like us to believe that's the only way to organize an economy, but the cooperative movement has a different vision.
Cooperative businesses that are owned and operated by workers offer an exciting alternative to the top-down organization of most businesses. In a time of crisis, when we desperately need new ways of thinking about how to organize our economic activity, cooperatives deserve more attention.
First, the many successful cooperatives remind us that we ordinary people are quite capable of running our own lives. While we endorse democracy in the political arena, many assume it's impossible at work. Cooperatives prove that wrong, not only by producing goods and services but by enriching the lives of the workers through a commitment to shared decision-making and responsibility.
Second, cooperatives think not only about profits but about the health of the community and natural world; they're more socially and ecologically responsible. This is reflected in cooperatives' concern for the "triple bottom line" -- not only profits, but people and the planet.
The U.S. government's response to the financial meltdown has included some disastrous decisions (bailing out banks to protect wealthy shareholders instead of nationalizing banks to protect ordinary people) and some policies that have helped but are inadequate (the stimulus program). But the underlying problem is that policymakers assume that there is no alternative to a corporate-dominated system, leading to "solutions" that leave us stuck with failed business-as-usual approaches.
It's crazy to trust in economic structures that have brought us to brink of economic collapse. But even in more "prosperous" times, modern corporations undermine democracy, weaken real community, and degrade the ecosystem. New thinking is urgently needed. Politicians who talk about an "ownership society" typically promote individual ownership of a tiny sliver of an economy still dominated by authoritarian corporate giants. An ownership society defined by cooperative institutions would be a game-changer.
None of this is hypothetical -- there are hundreds of flourishing cooperative businesses in the United States. The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, http://www.usworker.coop/, provides excellent information and inspiring stories. In Austin, a cooperative-incubator group, Third Coast Workers for Cooperation, http://thirdcoastworkers.coop/, offers training and support for people interested in creating democratic workplaces.
Putting our faith in institutions that have become too big to fail has failed. Institutions that are too greedy to defend can't be defended. Cooperative businesses aren't a magical solution to the critical economic problems we face, but a national economic policy that used fiscal and tax policies to support cooperatives would be an important step on a different path.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show AllPeople matter to ALL businesses. It's just a question of which people.
Capitalist business is charged with one singular fiduciary responsibility: to maximize profits for its shareholders. Doing otherwise, except to the very limited extent that may be justified in terms of fulfilling that singular obligation as the end objective, is unlawful.
That IS the capitalist system and it's the one that is supported and upheld by EVERY institutional component of the United States of America and its governance.
The fact that that capitalist fiduciary responsibility is much more sacred than the U.S. constitution (let alone silly humanistic and inherited Magna Carta Libertatum concepts like habeas corpus) has been proven many times over, in practice, in politics, and in jurisprudence. If you don't like it, you're living in the wrong country and have been for a very long time.
On the other hand, if you were thinking about moving elsewhere, bear in mind that it is the same system of 'Freedom and Democracy' that is being globalized apace with the enthusiastic assistance of U.S. arms and cannon fodder.
The success of credit unions are one widespread example that cooperatives can thrive in our capitalist society, even when under attack from corporate America.
To accept that we are a bunch of corporate slaves working to enrich wealthy shareholders is sad. Perhaps we do have very limited power in how the government spends our tax dollars. As individual consumers, however, we still have the power to purchase socially responsible goods and services that promote democracy, sustainability, and a more equitable distribution of wealth that promotes such values.
Recognition of the reality isn't necessarily acceptance, but it IS an essential step in dealing with that reality. The capitalist system is what it is and always has been, and it overwhelmingly dominates every aspect of U.S. existence. As for "individual consumers" their significance is even less than individual citizens.
Are ooperatives considered persons just like corporations?
Depends on their legal status. Incorporation is optional, but many (most?) cooperatives ARE corporations.
See http://supreme.justia.com/us/326/1/case.html
good sense from a good man.
"It's crazy to trust in economic structures that have brought us to brink of economic collapse."
Quite right. The elite are quite insane with their profligate power and planet destroying pollution policies.
But suppose, just suppose that they really, really ARE crazy. Suppose that people with immense riches are incapable, at the human level, of comprehending that, beyond having maslow's heirarchy maxed out and fullfilled, their is no way to increase your happiness? Suppose it drives them insane that they have so much power and money compared with when they were younger and not as rich, but remember being happier with less (a mortal sin to them)?
Or is this, like the last stage in life of some senior citizens, a sign of society wide dementia as capitalism reaches the end stage?
Whatever it is, I would advise people to stay far away from rich people. They really are nuts.
'In an economy dominated by corporations, most people spend their work lives in hierarchical settings in which they have no chance to participate in the decisions that most affect their lives. The typical business structure is, in fact, authoritarian -- owners and managers give orders, and workers follow them.'
Wondefully put. If only the millions of Americans who support Right Wing ideology could absorb the meaning of these words.
Governments, politicians, officials do not have a monopoly on authoritariansm. It is precisely a matter of who most affects your life _ the party who has the most day-to-day control over your life is the one who decides whether you live free or not. For most Americans that entity is not a government institution. The toughest battle we have is in convincing these millions of people that dictatorship has been privatized.
The millions who vote Republican are aware of this and have absorbed the meaning of those words.
Those who have not are the relatively small number of people controlling progressive and liberal politics. This prevents any such narrative from developing and getting to the public. That leaves a political vacuum, and the Republican party can and does exploit that vacuum.
Democrats, Greens, liberals and progressives - those who control those groups - are not opposed to this: "In an economy where most people spend their work lives in hierarchical settings in which they have no chance to participate in the decisions that most affect their lives. The typical business structure is, in fact, authoritarian -- owners and managers give orders, and workers follow them." They merely want a different group of people to be at the top of the authoritarian hierarchy running the show a little differently. The everyday people know this, too.
We do not need to convince millions, but mere hundreds, and those hundreds are right here.
Great point --
economies exist to support and nurture people -- to
enrich their lives -- not necessarily anyone's pocket book!
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
I don't think so, I think it exists after the fact to try to explain the behaviour of people in an economy. You don't need Economics in the formal sense to have an economy.
Cooperatives are a step in the right direction towards a democratization of the economy, but they are only a first step. The problem is that if individual cooperatives compete in a market economy, the workers are still subject to the whims and exigencies of marketplace forces. Thus the workers who own a cooperative may be forced to lay one of them own off--thus acting against their own interests as workers--if they don't turn a profit.
It seems to me that a bottom-up democratization of the economy can only work if the cooperatives join forces and work collectively and democratically to manage the economy. Otherwise, you still have the problems of profit and market-driven forces wreaking their usual havoc on working people. Instead of an atomized economy with a lot of small cooperatives competing in the marketplace, I would suggest that the next step after organizing within the workplace is organizing across workplaces. That also means the people taking democratic control over the largest corporations (the so-called "commanding heights" of the economy).
I think that the twin evils of corporate power and marketplace insanity need to be tamed by democratic self-organization of the people. Cooperatives are a limited form of self-organization, and a good starting point.
Good analysis. People need to own their own means of production, of course, and this can only be done collectively.
People naturally gravitate in this direction, or most people do. It does not require the remaking of "human nature," as so many people imagine that it would. To the contrary, it takes a tremendous amount of force and coercion to keep the current system in place. If "civilization collapsed" people would go back to fair exchange, based on the hours of labor involved. An hour's worth of shoes would be traded by the shoemaker for an hours worth of work by the farmer. As it is now, the farmer struggles to afford shoes and the shoemaker struggles to eat, while the people running Shoe Inc. and Food Inc. control enormous wealth -even though they produce nothing. They have us so brainwashed that people now think that without the capitalists there would "be no jobs" - that is, no one to make shoes and no one who needed them.
"The problem is that if individual cooperatives compete in a market economy, the workers are still subject to the whims and exigencies of marketplace forces. "
How would workers ever not be subject to market forces
You ask "How would workers ever not be subject to market forces?"
When we controlled our own destinies, of course. Is that not a worthwhile goal? There is nothing magical about "markets" that produces "forces" that are inescapable.
The way to escape "market forces" is to overthrow the domination and rule over us by those creating these forces and benefiting from them at our expense. What else?
"When we controlled our own destinies, of course."
What are you talking about? No one can have ultimate control over all aspects of their destiny.
"The way to escape "market forces" is to overthrow the domination and rule over us by those creating these forces and benefiting from them at our expense. "
That would just substitute one for another. You can't get rid of markets, that is where economic activity occurs, no matter what system is in place. Ergo, there are always going to be market forces.
I didn't say "get rid of markets" I said get rid of what you people here are calling "market forces."
"No one can have ultimate control over all aspects of their destiny" could be used to justify any and all exploitation and oppression. Ergo, it is a meaningless rebuttal to what I said.
"I didn't say "get rid of markets" I said get rid of what you people here are calling "market forces.""
OK, then that leaves some kind of market. That market will have market forces, and those participating in the market will be subject to tose forces.
You answered my question this way:
"When we controlled our own destinies, of course."
That is why I stated "No one can have ultimate control over all aspects of their destiny", to nullify your answer. If what I say is not true, them plaese say why. Otherwise the question is unanswered still. That may be fine though, there are not always good and obvious answers toi questions involving complex things.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
To recap: I asked "How would workers ever not be subject to market forces?". The answer is "never". They will always be in a market, therefore they will always be subject to market forces. If you think otherwise you are just plain wrong.