[Dagoth Ur]

Dag - The Co-operative Group is now a constellation of dozens of different co-ops but was founded in 1844. To date they have hardly killed anyone, which in your eyes no doubt makes them crashing failures, but they are 165 years of working class people helping working class people live better, which in my eyes makes them quite admirable.

From your own source:

To pay back the co-operative debt, the group has since sold The Co-operative Pharmacy to the Bestway Group and The co-operative farm's to various farmers. 20% of The Co-operative Bank is still owned by The Co-operative Group, However The Co-operative membership, which in the past gave a share of the groups profits to customers has now been cut back to promotional discounts and coupons which members collect when shopping with the food, electrical and funeralcare divisions.

I'm pretty sure I've heard of this group actually, who used to be something really special. But the past 30 years has seen a massive constriction of actual membership (ie most employees are not members anymore), and they have allowed corporate "members" to dominate the whole scheme. They sold off all their shit too so they become less and less of a collective by the moment.

Oh and they've barely killed anyone. What a bunch of pussies.

[SolarCross]

I'm pretty sure I've heard of this group actually, who used to be something really special. But the past 30 years has seen a massive constriction of actual membership (ie most employees are not members anymore), and they have allowed corporate "members" to dominate the whole scheme. They sold off all their shit too so they become less and less of a collective by the moment.

Oh and they've barely killed anyone. What a bunch of pussies.

They have had some problems but those were really due to over ambitious management expanding the co-op too much. They bought out Brittania one of the middle sized banks which in one fell swoop would have made them a major player in the British banking scene, but the purchase was too big and they over extended themselves. Companies get in trouble all the time, co-ops get no special exemption from making mistakes. You look at the co-ops trouble and say "See! capitalist conspiracy always wins, let's kill someone!". The truth is more prosaic any business, co-operative or not, can screw up and fuck themselves. The trick is do your best and learn from mistakes. Just the fact that this co-op lasted 165 years, which is way longer than most private companies last and much longer than the SU lasted, shows co-ops are viable.

[Dagoth Ur]

It shows they are viable as long as they have a large member base that gets direct benefits from the co-op. However it is not viable as a real business lets be real. They may be older than most businesses but let's ask Du Pont if they give a shit about some british co-op in massive debt.

You've still failed to explain how these co-ops changed anything. The only change displayed is the co-ops mission of worker's co-operation changing into normal capitalism.

[Goldberk]

I think dag goes to far with the criticism, whilst collectives within a capitalist society can't bring about socialism, they can help promote it and it's principles, educating and advocating to workers on principles of worker management/control for example.

[SolarCross]

It shows they are viable as long as they have a large member base that gets direct benefits from the co-op. However it is not viable as a real business lets be real. They may be older than most businesses but let's ask Du Pont if they give a shit about some british co-op in massive debt.

You've still failed to explain how these co-ops changed anything. The only change displayed is the co-ops mission of worker's co-operation changing into normal capitalism.

Nonsense, there are lots of co-ops that are quite small that are no less viable. The Co-op group was truly massive compared with most co-ops and it's problems came about from trying to get bigger, too much too fast. It was viable as a real business for 165 years (and may well once it sorts itself out last another 165 years), how you can say co-ops aren't viable businesses if they can last that long is breathtaking. Whose side are you on anyway?

Change - The only change you are interested in is a fantasy rapture so nothing I could say about a co-ops achievements will impress you.

Capitalism is not the work of the devil, it's just people doing business. Co-ops are just another way of doing business that is perhaps more favourable to those that labour than it is to those that invest. This is a strength and a weakness. Labour is happy but capital investment is harder to get.

The regular public liability company (called a joint stock company in the US I believe) is structured in a way that allows easy access to capital investors but perhaps has less ability to please those that labour for it.

The truly private company which we call in the UK a sole proprietorship or partnership has just the same difficulties raising capital as a co-op and the same difficulties pleasing labour that a plc has but can tend to have sharper management since one (or a few) owner(s) is the highest manager who naturally will have a clean interest in managing well since it is all his to win or lose.

Perhaps it is time for new kind of co-op that is no less pleasing to labour whilst being structurally more capable of receiving capital investment. I have some ideas on that but I'm still a bit muddy on the details so I won't say any more on that yet.

[Eauz]

And how would you do that without actually rolling up your sleeves, spitting on your hands and making a collective? At some point you have to stop dreaming and start acting, or nothing will happen.

I'm already a member of a cooperative that makes a profit and shares the profit with its members.

[SolarCross]

I'm already a member of a cooperative that makes a profit and shares the profit with its members.

Kudos. Actually I'm in a taxi coop now. We don't share profit because in our business that would be retarded, but we share certain common expenses and we fly under the same livery. Phone work comes in on a shared telephone number and jobs shared out through a common despatcher system. Of course our co-op came about for practical reasons, not one of us is ideologically motivated.

Scroll back and take a look at pugsville's first post, his housing co-op has a music room, who has a feckin music room? That's a luxury only fairly rich people can afford, yet his co-op has one and they are, presumably, a mix of working class and maybe some middle class people. That's the kind of cool things that can happen when people collaborate.

[DrSteveBrule]

How about a worker's union that represents the employees of a corporation? That sounds like a middle sized collective.

If the current capitalist economic system is transformed into one that allows workers to own most or all of the means of production democratically, a rational person would have an incentive to join a union in order to represent their concerns about the workplace.

Co-ops are just another way of doing business that is perhaps more favourable to those that labour than it is to those that invest. This is a strength and a weakness. Labour is happy but capital investment is harder to get.

Hence why co-ops have established a workaround to this: by directly funding startups via the coop. Mondragon has their own "bank" that provides capital directly towards new co-ops.

Perhaps it is time for new kind of co-op that is no less pleasing to labour whilst being structurally more capable of receiving capital investment. I have some ideas on that but I'm still a bit muddy on the details so I won't say any more on that yet.

Have you looked into Germany's system of co-determination? It is less "labor friendly" then what I would prefer, since workers don't control more than half of the corporation, and that worker input is valued less when compared to other co-op models. However, it does maintain the incentive to invest that is found in private ownership models.

[AFAIK]

My father was a member of Dairy Farmers of Britain.

[SolarCross]

How about a worker's union that represents the employees of a corporation? That sounds like a middle sized collective.

Yes, I suppose it is. Unions usually are not productive in themselves, only parasitic in a thuggish sort of way. Mind you that perhaps might also be said for the large scale collectives such as the nation state.

If the current capitalist economic system is transformed into one that allows workers to own most or all of the means of production democratically, a rational person would have an incentive to join a union in order to represent their concerns about the workplace.

Ownership of the MoP is already available if any worker wanted it and public liability companies are the easiest to buy into. Most workers don't want to own the means of production, neither in the equity sense nor the authority sense. If they did want it, there are options but relatively few take them. Democracy sounds nice but in reality it is a pretty clumsy and non-sensical way of making decisions. It is better for people to have total authority over the small things that actually concern them than a tiny little share of the authority over everything most of which they know nothing about and don't care about. Imagine if your life was totally democratically controlled by the whole world. You can't even make a cup of tea without getting the go ahead from 51% of the world's 7 billion people... That's extreme democracy sure but less extreme democracy is just as nonsensical and clumsy. Only at the point where democracy is completely diluted into non-existence is effectiveness and sanity given a chance of appearing.
Co-ops have struggled with this for ages, its an ideological and impractical chore with which they saddle themselves, which in the end they always end up streamlining to the point where it doesn't practically exist just so that something can get done.

Co-ops are just another way of doing business that is perhaps more favourable to those that labour than it is to those that invest. This is a strength and a weakness. Labour is happy but capital investment is harder to get.

Hence why co-ops have established a workaround to this: by directly funding startups via the coop. Mondragon has their own "bank" that provides capital directly towards new co-ops.

Yes still the capital raising is confined to a relatively small pool. A Plc will gladly and directly absorb capital from anyone in the world barring regulatory barriers.

Perhaps it is time for new kind of co-op that is no less pleasing to labour whilst being structurally more capable of receiving capital investment. I have some ideas on that but I'm still a bit muddy on the details so I won't say any more on that yet.

Have you looked into Germany's system of co-determination? It is less "labor friendly" then what I would prefer, since workers don't control more than half of the corporation, and that worker input is valued less when compared to other co-op models. However, it does maintain the incentive to invest that is found in private ownership models.

First I have heard of it but I have now briefly googled it. I don't see anything in it that might be usable.