Live data from Hacker News

Mondragon as the new city-state

elysian.press

61–70 of 372 posts

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#61
post #4

There is no value without labor. This was recognized by everyone from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln to Adam Smith. Smith even conceded that profit was impossible if workers retain their surplus value, which is exactly the point. I bring this up because that's what capitalism is: draining the surplus labor value from workers to the capital-owning class. In feudalism, the artistocracy and th emonarchy extracted that val…

> There is no value without labor.

Plausible.

But there is very little value without tools. In fact, one could argue that all material progress has been in the form of better and better tools. One person with a combine beats 100 people with sickles.

Those tools are necessary for almost all of the value that labor produces.

So if we want those tools, in the real world we need to pay the producer of those tools. (Or make them ourselves, which is possible, but runs into division-of-labor issues.) The people who manufacture combines aren't a charity; they want to receive the value of their work too.

And unless the farmer (or custom cutter) has the money to buy the combine, then there's a third party in the situation - the capitalist, the person who provides the money to buy the tools that will give the increased productivity. That person usually isn't a charity, either. They need to get some return on their money.

But the place where I at least partly agree is this: The worker who knows how to use the tools is deserves at least part of the value provided by using the tool. The tool-maker deserves part of the value; the capitalist deserves part of the value; and the worker also deserves part of the value. (If you don't like the word "deserves", well, without all three parties, the value isn't produced, and none of the three are charities, so if we want the value, we need to give them part of the returns.)

And currently, you can make a very solid case that the worker is getting the short end of the stick. I can't buy "the worker deserves it all". No, the worker does not. But I can agree that workers deserve more than they're getting.

(In the cases where the workers either make their own tools or have the money to buy them, this argument breaks down. But in an industrialized society, that seems to be the exception, not the rule.)

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#62
post #8

A thing that is kind of glossed over is: what is "ownership" when we talk about worker-owners at cooperatives? > The profits generated by each cooperative are put to work for the benefit of the greater whole. Each cooperative gives 14-40% of their gross profits to their division (depending on the division), and another 14% to their parent company. The rest are invested back in the cooperative (60% of net profits), di…

A workers cooperative is owned by its current workers. Are you going to argue that consultancies and law firms are not really owned by their current partners, either?

Profits belong to the people who create them, not to people who used to work at the same company in the past. Expecting future employees of a company to work for ex-employees in the future is unfair. Having worked for a company, doesn’t entitle anyone to remain on the paycheck until death, despite not working there anymore.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#63
It's interesting to read about Mondragon in more detail. I just came across the term in Kim Stanley Robinson's solar-system sci-fi epic "2312." The book (highly recommended) heavily references Mondragon; that's the name for the alliance / co-op of all of the planets and settlements that aren't Earth or Mars.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no value without labor. is this a serious statement?

He's a Marxist and believes in Marx's labor theory of value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value As wikipedia says, "modern mainstream economics rejects the LTV" (for very good reasons). It leads to some pretty obvious absurdities if you take it seriously. For example, 10,000 people digging holes should be more "valuable" than one guy designing a microchip, because hey! The holes take more labor.

Your "holes" example is a distortion (simplification and misinterpretation) of Marx's theory.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#65
post #25
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In some sense, corporate employees that get some form of equity as part of their compensation are more literally worker-owners. As soon as a worker leaves or sells their shares, these shares aren't worker-owned anymore and the interests of their owner can quickly diverge from the ones of a worker. That's roughly what a coop fixes I think.

I can kinda see how one can argue that this is a feature rather than a bug, but I still think this points to the more distinctive feature in these coops being democratic governance of workers rather than ownership. I own shares of past companies I've worked at, but I don't have any representation in how the company is run. It doesn't matter if my interests have diverged from current workers, because I have no influen…

> ...these coops being democratic governance of workers rather than ownership.

So who are the owners if not the workers?

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#66
post #4

There is no value without labor. This was recognized by everyone from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln to Adam Smith. Smith even conceded that profit was impossible if workers retain their surplus value, which is exactly the point. I bring this up because that's what capitalism is: draining the surplus labor value from workers to the capital-owning class. In feudalism, the artistocracy and th emonarchy extracted that val…

> Co-operatives can go a lot further than manufacturing too. It can be a solution for housing.

An interesting example of this in an article published yesterday (a housing/renovation co-op operating in Baltimore).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/sep/03/wat...

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#68
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I work for someone else, I am offloading some of the risk to that person/owner. Workers generally risk their lives or simply injury. Owners "risk" capital. I put that in quotes because our government is typically set up to rescue failing businesses and by that I mean bailing out the owners. If the business fails, the owner simply has less money or they have to become a worker. So who is really taking a risk he…

What are you suggesting as a better system? To withold basic needs for profit, you need to be able to provide basic needs in the first place. All of the alternatives I know of can't even reach that point.

A free market of cooperatives is an alternative. One might call it „cooperatism“, if it needs a term.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#69
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I work for someone else, I am offloading some of the risk to that person/owner. Workers generally risk their lives or simply injury. Owners "risk" capital. I put that in quotes because our government is typically set up to rescue failing businesses and by that I mean bailing out the owners. If the business fails, the owner simply has less money or they have to become a worker. So who is really taking a risk he…

What are you suggesting as a better system? To withold basic needs for profit, you need to be able to provide basic needs in the first place. All of the alternatives I know of can't even reach that point.

After some initial mistakes, the Soviet system did provide basic needs. It was inefficient, badly led, conservative, repressive, ultimately undemocratic, and often produced very mediocre output (crappy houses, etc), but it ensured that everyone had food, shelter, work, healthcare, and education.

Neither full-collectivism nor full-capitalism are the final answer.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#70
post #39

The difference between Mondragon, the kibbutzim, and other successful examples of collective labor, and the Soviet system, is precisely that the former are not governments, and operate in a capitalist system of property rights and free markets (in a practical rather than spherical cow sense of that term). I'm all for more cooperatives, it's a good model. Operating in a system which doesn't compel that form of organiz…

The "soviet system" as you call, started (yes the revolution) with a slogan "power to the soviets". In the slogan the word "soviet" meant "worker coop". This slogan was abolished when more central planning took over, and the word soviet become more associated with the central govt/ the state.

I didn't say "soviet system", I said "Soviet system", as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I do know what the word means.
Post reply on HN