First, there is no rule that a worker co-op taking care of its workers will be less profitable than an exploitative company. At first glance, it seems reasonable. But it's not a truism. For example, a well-taken care of worker is likely to be more productive than one who feels exploited.
Second, profits are not how companies compete. Profits are by definition the extra money that goes into the owners' pockets. Companies compete in many different ways; quality, marketing, price, etc. The fact that there are many successful worker co-ops in capitalist nations should provide some evidence here.
Third, one could imagine a nation that mandates that all companies are worker co-ops. They would still be profit-driven private companies, but would be controlled by the workers (who would also be the ones saying the profit).
You're missing the point that those successful coops are only successful to the extent they are profitable within the larger capitalist framework, which means worker consideration will be secondary and most importantly they have to compete with capitalist enterprises that engage in heavy exploitation and wage suppression
As long as the capitalist profit motive survives it will in general win against those firms that don't engage in exploitation and wage suppression and limit the growth of competing coops, it's creates a ceiling for genuine worker friendly coops and ties them to the greater capitalist network in the form of regulating capitals
Profitability is the be all and end all of capitalist enterprise, the methods of competition are irrelevant (quality, marketing, price, etc) unless they produce sufficient profit, otherwise from the logic of capitalism there's no point in initiating the enterprise in the first place, this is the direct consequence of capitalist ownership of the means of production
Your mistake is assuming capitalist markets are a universal phenomenon that can be controled by all classes, that's not true, capitalist markets only exist as the result of a specific form of property relations, the logic that drives workers and the logic that drives capitalists are not the same, workers want their wages to raise, capitalists want profit, wages cut into profits, do you see the contradiction of the coop capitalism you're imagining?
Coops can't grow when regulating capitals limit their potential, and workers won't self-raise their wages if it means the over-arching profitability of the company is at stake hence threatening unemployment, in the world you're imagining the workers would still want to do away with this self-shackling profit system that limits their ability to grow and sustain themselves
You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions, both about me, and about the nature of reality.
You're also spouting a lot of nonsense. "The logic of capitalism" is a meaningless phrase. You're attributing a lot of assumptions onto something that just means "the means of production can be privately owned".
The fact of the matter is that there are existing, successful worker co-ops. That alone disproves most of your claims that you take as axioms.
Ok, there are actual implications and definitions behind the terms you're throwing around haphazardly, fact of the matter is you don't know what you're talking about, that's fine, you don't have the relevant knowledge of economics or theory, technical or historical, so a lot of what I said probably went over your head
So let's clear up some basics, there is a logic to capitalism; private ownership of the means of production is the framework, profitability is the fuel and commodity production is the output, those aren't assumptions, that is the "nature of reality" under capitalism
And finally I didn't say there are no successful coops, read more carefully, I said they're only successful to the extent they are profitable and are limited by competing firms that act as regulating capitals, firms compete by cutting costs or increasing productivity, but productivity is tied to technical developments, so that can't always be relied on, but cutting costs i.e. wages is always the first resort, hence the disadvantage for coops who theoretically value worker compensation over other more common capitalist concerns
I'd add also an inherent necessity in Capitalism's stability is the marriage of concentrated riches with the state's power and its monopoly on violence. Should worker co-ops ever seriously threaten the wrong bourgeois lot, restrictive laws that only apply to the co-op will appear, unlawful actions will go ignored, state officials will be pressed to harass, legal means will be levied, etc, all until the co-op is tanked. 'Successful' worker co-ops are only ever permitted to the point where they don't meaningfully threaten any bourgeois power, profit is paid no heed in these situations.
Marx's critique of Trade Unions above also applies to cooperatives.
You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions, both about me, and about the nature of reality.
Prove wages don't cut into profits.
Prove profits don't cut into wages
Prove co-ops don't have to make profits
"The logic of capitalism" is a meaningless phrase.
Private ownership over the means of production, generalized commodity production, industrialization, and generalized wage labor are the logical conditions of capitalism. Explain how this is not the case.
The fact of the matter is that there are existing, successful worker co-ops.
Successful in a capitalist context. Which is an exploitative context. They have to make profit to survive, which means they have to pay workers less than the value of their labor power on average. Read Value Price & Profit. Read Wage Labor & Capital. Read Capital. Read Theories of Surplus Value.
That alone disproves most of your claims that you take as axioms.
Worker-owned co-ops are definitely preferable to the alternative form of capitalist enterprise, but they can only get you so far, just like trade unions. These are tools for slightly alleviating the suffering of the worker in a capitalist context, but they are not the solution to capitalism.
EDIT: Coming back to this a few days later to drop some Stalin:
The most widespread, mass organisations are trade unions and workers' co-operatives (mainly producers' and consumers' co-operatives). The object of the trade unions is to fight (mainly) against industrial capital to improve the conditions of the workers within the limits of the present capitalist system. The object of the co-operatives is to fight (mainly) against merchant capital to secure an increase of consumption among the workers by reducing the prices of articles of prime necessity, also within the limits of the capitalist system, of course. The proletariat undoubtedly needs both trade unions and co-operatives as means of organising the proletarian masses. Hence, from the point of view of the proletarian socialism of Marx and Engels, the proletariat must utilise both these forms of organisation and reinforce and strengthen them, as far as this is possible under present political conditions, of course.
But trade unions and co-operatives alone cannot satisfy the organisational needs of the militant proletariat. This is because the organisations mentioned cannot go beyond the limits of capitalism, for their object is to improve the conditions of the workers under the capitalist system. The workers, however, want to free themselves entirely from capitalist slavery, they want to smash these limits, and not merely operate within the limits of capitalism. Hence, in addition, an organisation is needed that will rally around itself the class-conscious elements of the workers of all trades, that will transform the proletariat into a conscious class and make it its chief aim to smash the capitalist system, to prepare for the socialist revolution.
Such an organisation is the Social-Democratic Party of the proletariat.
This Party must be a class party, and it must be quite independent of other parties—and this is because it is the party of the proletarian class, the emancipation of which can be brought about only by this class itself.
This Party must be a revolutionary party—and this because the workers can be emancipated only by revolutionary means, by means of the socialist revolution.
This Party must be an international party, the doors of the Party must be open to all class-conscious proletarians—and this because the emancipation of the workers is not a national but a social question, equally important for the Georgian proletarians, for the Russian proletarians, and for the proletarians of other nations.
Hence, it is clear, that the more closely the proletarians of the different nations are united, the more thoroughly the national barriers which have been raised between them are demolished, the stronger will the Party of the proletariat be, and the more will the organisation of the proletariat in one indivisible class be facilitated.
Hence, it is necessary, as far as possible, to introduce the principle of centralism in the proletarian organisations as against the looseness of federation — irrespective of whether these organisations are party, trade union or co-operative.
It is also clear that all these organisations must be built on a democratic basis, in so far as this is not hindered by political or other conditions, of course.
What should be the relations between the Party on the one hand and the co-operatives and trade unions on the other? Should the latter be party or non-party? The answer to this question depends upon where and under what conditions the proletariat has to fight. At all events, there can be no doubt that the friendlier the trade unions and co-operatives are towards the socialist party of the proletariat, the more fully will both develop. And this is because both these economic organisations, if they are not closely connected with a strong socialist party, often become petty, allow narrow craft interests to obscure general class interests and thereby cause great harm to the proletariat. It is therefore necessary, in all cases, to ensure that the trade unions and co-operatives are under the ideological and political influence of the Party. Only if this is done will the organisations mentioned be transformed into a socialist school that will organise the proletariat—at present split up into separate groups—into a conscious class.
Such, in general, are the characteristic features of the proletarian socialism of Marx and Engels.
Most large successful worker co-ops make up the majority of their profit through the exploitation of part-time and seasonal laborers that are not on the same pay-scale and insurance plans as their full-time and co-owned employees. They then limit their full-time employment to a certain number of individuals, usually by understaffing, dangling the possibility of fulltime employment at these part-time members, but also by exploiting the surplus of third-world workers.
Co-ops within a capitalist market context cannot escape the basic wage-labor exploitation that is baked into the system and compete at-scale with larger more hierarchical firms.
I have worked for multiple worker co-ops in the U.S. and this is usually the case.
Co-ops may be profitable enough to stay in business and productive in a community, but if you plan on competing against larger organizations in meaningful ways, good luck.
Third, one could imagine a nation that mandates that all companies are worker co-ops. They would still be profit-driven private companies, but would be controlled by the workers (who would also be the ones saying the profit).
First, there is no rule that a worker co-op taking care of its workers will be less profitable than an exploitative company. At first glance, it seems reasonable. But it's not a truism. For example, a well-taken care of worker is likely to be more productive than one who feels exploited.
Second, profits are not how companies compete. Profits are by definition the extra money that goes into the owners' pockets. Companies compete in many different ways; quality, marketing, price, etc. The fact that there are many successful worker co-ops in capitalist nations should provide some evidence here.
Third, one could imagine a nation that mandates that all companies are worker co-ops. They would still be profit-driven private companies, but would be controlled by the workers (who would also be the ones saying the profit).
You're missing the point that those successful coops are only successful to the extent they are profitable within the larger capitalist framework, which means worker consideration will be secondary and most importantly they have to compete with capitalist enterprises that engage in heavy exploitation and wage suppression
As long as the capitalist profit motive survives it will in general win against those firms that don't engage in exploitation and wage suppression and limit the growth of competing coops, it's creates a ceiling for genuine worker friendly coops and ties them to the greater capitalist network in the form of regulating capitals
Profitability is the be all and end all of capitalist enterprise, the methods of competition are irrelevant (quality, marketing, price, etc) unless they produce sufficient profit, otherwise from the logic of capitalism there's no point in initiating the enterprise in the first place, this is the direct consequence of capitalist ownership of the means of production
Your mistake is assuming capitalist markets are a universal phenomenon that can be controled by all classes, that's not true, capitalist markets only exist as the result of a specific form of property relations, the logic that drives workers and the logic that drives capitalists are not the same, workers want their wages to raise, capitalists want profit, wages cut into profits, do you see the contradiction of the coop capitalism you're imagining?
Coops can't grow when regulating capitals limit their potential, and workers won't self-raise their wages if it means the over-arching profitability of the company is at stake hence threatening unemployment, in the world you're imagining the workers would still want to do away with this self-shackling profit system that limits their ability to grow and sustain themselves
You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions, both about me, and about the nature of reality.
You're also spouting a lot of nonsense. "The logic of capitalism" is a meaningless phrase. You're attributing a lot of assumptions onto something that just means "the means of production can be privately owned".
The fact of the matter is that there are existing, successful worker co-ops. That alone disproves most of your claims that you take as axioms.
Ok, there are actual implications and definitions behind the terms you're throwing around haphazardly, fact of the matter is you don't know what you're talking about, that's fine, you don't have the relevant knowledge of economics or theory, technical or historical, so a lot of what I said probably went over your head
So let's clear up some basics, there is a logic to capitalism; private ownership of the means of production is the framework, profitability is the fuel and commodity production is the output, those aren't assumptions, that is the "nature of reality" under capitalism
And finally I didn't say there are no successful coops, read more carefully, I said they're only successful to the extent they are profitable and are limited by competing firms that act as regulating capitals, firms compete by cutting costs or increasing productivity, but productivity is tied to technical developments, so that can't always be relied on, but cutting costs i.e. wages is always the first resort, hence the disadvantage for coops who theoretically value worker compensation over other more common capitalist concerns
That buddy is a form of systemic logic
I'd add also an inherent necessity in Capitalism's stability is the marriage of concentrated riches with the state's power and its monopoly on violence. Should worker co-ops ever seriously threaten the wrong bourgeois lot, restrictive laws that only apply to the co-op will appear, unlawful actions will go ignored, state officials will be pressed to harass, legal means will be levied, etc, all until the co-op is tanked. 'Successful' worker co-ops are only ever permitted to the point where they don't meaningfully threaten any bourgeois power, profit is paid no heed in these situations.
deleted by creator
From Value, Price & Profit :
Marx's critique of Trade Unions above also applies to cooperatives.
Prove wages don't cut into profits.
Prove profits don't cut into wages
Prove co-ops don't have to make profits
Private ownership over the means of production, generalized commodity production, industrialization, and generalized wage labor are the logical conditions of capitalism. Explain how this is not the case.
Successful in a capitalist context. Which is an exploitative context. They have to make profit to survive, which means they have to pay workers less than the value of their labor power on average. Read Value Price & Profit. Read Wage Labor & Capital. Read Capital. Read Theories of Surplus Value.
Worker-owned co-ops are definitely preferable to the alternative form of capitalist enterprise, but they can only get you so far, just like trade unions. These are tools for slightly alleviating the suffering of the worker in a capitalist context, but they are not the solution to capitalism.
EDIT: Coming back to this a few days later to drop some Stalin:
Most large successful worker co-ops make up the majority of their profit through the exploitation of part-time and seasonal laborers that are not on the same pay-scale and insurance plans as their full-time and co-owned employees. They then limit their full-time employment to a certain number of individuals, usually by understaffing, dangling the possibility of fulltime employment at these part-time members, but also by exploiting the surplus of third-world workers.
Co-ops within a capitalist market context cannot escape the basic wage-labor exploitation that is baked into the system and compete at-scale with larger more hierarchical firms.
I have worked for multiple worker co-ops in the U.S. and this is usually the case.
Co-ops may be profitable enough to stay in business and productive in a community, but if you plan on competing against larger organizations in meaningful ways, good luck.
Yes, that’s called socialism