Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mondragon Corporation

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#121

Post by dbingham »

jp555 wrote: post #113
irthomasthomas wrote: post #94

I thought Chomsky's quote was interesting. "Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive…

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

No, that's not the alternative. The alternative is a system that isn't profit driven, where all the companies are worker cooperatives.

In that system, there are no stock holders demanding ever greater returns, those doing the work are always completely in control. They can choose to do "just enough" to live a good life. Or they can choose to focus on the more fulfilling aspects of their work, and not on the profit.

In that system, it's easier to pass regulations that prevent the worker cooperatives from externalizing, because the survival pressures aren't nearly as intense.

But it's not top-down centrally managed.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#122

Post by nickbauman »

kortilla wrote: post #111
hooverlunch wrote: post #83

There are lots of small tech worker coops in the U.S. and Canada. See https://techworker.coop . I co-founded one, Sassafras Tech Collective, in Ann Arbor. It's been an amazing journey. I don't think I could ever go back to working in a non-democratic workplace.

Can you speak to the downsides of a democratic workplace? How do you avoid the pitfalls of a union where people end up getting compensated for things like seniority instead of skill?

A union is not a coop, so the forces are not the same at all.

Furthermore, it's not clear that "seniority" would trump "skill" in a co-op, either. Or that the opposite is true of a more "traditional" workplace.

The job of each worker-owner is, in part, to help other worker owners developer their strengths to their fullest for the benefit of co-op.

An employee-owned co-operative corporation (EOCC) governs as form of direct democracy. In my experience, your biggest obstacle is going to be collective decision-making. How well you do that is a test of the people in the co-op. Consider: management is just another skill, not a rank. You don't have a boss. You have people who are counting on you. Management serves at the pleasure of the worker-owners.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#123

Post by antsoul »

jp555 wrote: post #113
irthomasthomas wrote: post #94

I thought Chomsky's quote was interesting. "Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive…

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

Wait a minute, you state something that Chomsky never said (the "alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution") , and then call him "not very useful" for this fake statement? He's not saying Mondragon is bad, just that within capitalism, these solutions are still fucked on the long term.

If you really want to judge him on his real-world solutions, then take at look at Michael Albert's Participatory economics that he's been supporting for a while : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

But according to me, what Chomsky lacks in his analysis is some hegelian stuff, so I'd recommend to go further and dig some Slavoj Zizek and Deleuze and so on..

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#124

Post by pinkfoot »

nickbauman wrote: post #122
kortilla wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you speak to the downsides of a democratic workplace? How do you avoid the pitfalls of a union where people end up getting compensated for things like seniority instead of skill?

A union is not a coop, so the forces are not the same at all. Furthermore, it's not clear that "seniority" would trump "skill" in a co-op, either. Or that the opposite is true of a more "traditional" workplace. The job of each worker-owner is, in part, to help other worker owners developer their strengths to their fullest for the benefit of co-op. An employee-owned co-operative corporation (EOCC) governs as form of d…

> You don't have a boss.

Unless everyone can make equally large payments on behalf of the company, you most certainly have bosses.

Find those people. They are the bosses. Everything else is theatre.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#125

Post by hooverlunch »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #112
hooverlunch wrote: post #83

There are lots of small tech worker coops in the U.S. and Canada. See https://techworker.coop . I co-founded one, Sassafras Tech Collective, in Ann Arbor. It's been an amazing journey. I don't think I could ever go back to working in a non-democratic workplace.

> It's been an amazing journey. So you sold it, eh?

Heh, you can't sell a worker coop. One of the key defining features is a "de-mutualization" provision in the founding documents. You can only sell your own share, which has, in our coop, a fixed value of $1,000. And you can only sell that share back to the coop.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#126

Post by jp555 »

antsoul wrote: post #123
jp555 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution to ensure no externalization happens ever? In theory that's appealing (especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower), but then in practice every time it's been tried it hasn't worked well at all. Chomsky is smart, but not very useful because "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" - Yogi Berra

Wait a minute, you state something that Chomsky never said (the "alternative 100% top-down central-managed solution") , and then call him "not very useful" for this fake statement? He's not saying Mondragon is bad, just that within capitalism, these solutions are still fucked on the long term. If you really want to judge him on his real-world solutions, then take at look at Michael Albert's Participatory economics th…

I questioned, not stated.

I mean that I find him too theoretical - His thinking is all very smart and appealing but useless in practice.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#127

Post by iagovar »

enriquto wrote: post #120
iagovar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any of the large Spanish companies, as all of them have extremely close ties to francoism Come on dude, is this really necessary in HN? Don't you think you're stretching it a bit?

Sure, comparing the basque struggle to the francoist genocide was quite a stretch of my part. Sorry about that, mate!

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#128

Post by SamBam »

pinkfoot wrote: post #124
nickbauman wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A union is not a coop, so the forces are not the same at all. Furthermore, it's not clear that "seniority" would trump "skill" in a co-op, either. Or that the opposite is true of a more "traditional" workplace. The job of each worker-owner is, in part, to help other worker owners developer their strengths to their fullest for the benefit of co-op. An employee-owned co-operative corporation (EOCC) governs as form of d…

> You don't have a boss. Unless everyone can make equally large payments on behalf of the company, you most certainly have bosses. Find those people. They are the bosses. Everything else is theatre.

Or large payments are approved democratically.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#129

Post by hooverlunch »

kortilla wrote: post #111
hooverlunch wrote: post #83

There are lots of small tech worker coops in the U.S. and Canada. See https://techworker.coop . I co-founded one, Sassafras Tech Collective, in Ann Arbor. It's been an amazing journey. I don't think I could ever go back to working in a non-democratic workplace.

Can you speak to the downsides of a democratic workplace? How do you avoid the pitfalls of a union where people end up getting compensated for things like seniority instead of skill?

We are developing a "thrivable" payscale that rewards each of the following:

- relevant prior experience (before joining the coop) - longevity (aka seniority) - dependent care responsibilities - membership (a small raise once you become a member)

The prior experience piece is determined with a points system, designed to take as much of the self-advocacy (with all of its race/gender/class pitfalls) out of the process as possible.

The system also includes annual cost of living adjustments.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#130

Post by hooverlunch »

pinkfoot wrote: post #124
nickbauman wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A union is not a coop, so the forces are not the same at all. Furthermore, it's not clear that "seniority" would trump "skill" in a co-op, either. Or that the opposite is true of a more "traditional" workplace. The job of each worker-owner is, in part, to help other worker owners developer their strengths to their fullest for the benefit of co-op. An employee-owned co-operative corporation (EOCC) governs as form of d…

> You don't have a boss. Unless everyone can make equally large payments on behalf of the company, you most certainly have bosses. Find those people. They are the bosses. Everything else is theatre.

SamBam nailed it. For us, any large expenses must be approved by consensus of the whole group. For larger coops, they would need approval of a democratically elected and recallable board of directors.
Post reply on HN