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

131–140 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#131

Post by nickbauman »

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

Have you ever noticed that once you pierce the walls of "big corp", you find a command economy that's driven dictatorially from the c-suite? Capitalism and "free" markets are great for everyone else. Dictatorship is de rigueur inside the company.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#132

Post by iagovar »

patcon wrote: post #100

There's a really inspiring federation of 40-ish tech worker co-ops in Argentina called FACTTIC[1], who have been developing a neat process called FIT[2] by which they share work amongst themselves via regular check-in calls. It's almost like they're part of a big meta-company together that shared opportunities based on their needs (e.g., who needs the money the most, etc.) Here's a video of a presentation they gave o…

Could coops constitute, at least, a partial solution to ageism? Many of the US commenters have expressed their frustration and experiences in this regard, perhaps cooperatives can serve as a good quality alternative. Perhaps the problem is that it seems a model that fits more with consulting than with a product company.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#133

Post by hooverlunch »

jboynyc wrote: post #95
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.

Cool, thanks for chiming in here. > I don't think I could ever go back to working in a non-democratic workplace. I would love to read a bit more about that sometime.

We are about to roll out a blog! Check https://sassafras.coop in a month or two...

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#134

Post by wuliwong »

ianleeclark wrote: post #116
macspoofing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy for anyone to take potshots from the sidelines, but surely Chomsky sees the economic, and humanitarian disasters that non-market based systems ALWAYS result in. What's the alternative here?

The quote there seems to have issues with the profit motive, not market systems.

In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss. I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no generally accepted currency but I do not think that is what most people mean when they use the term "market systems."

There is a lot I'm unaware of, possibly market systems without prices is one of those things?

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#135

Post by patcon »

iagovar wrote: post #132
patcon wrote: post #100

There's a really inspiring federation of 40-ish tech worker co-ops in Argentina called FACTTIC[1], who have been developing a neat process called FIT[2] by which they share work amongst themselves via regular check-in calls. It's almost like they're part of a big meta-company together that shared opportunities based on their needs (e.g., who needs the money the most, etc.) Here's a video of a presentation they gave o…

Could coops constitute, at least, a partial solution to ageism? Many of the US commenters have expressed their frustration and experiences in this regard, perhaps cooperatives can serve as a good quality alternative. Perhaps the problem is that it seems a model that fits more with consulting than with a product company.

Hm. Interesting. I mean, I'm biased, but I believe it could.

An analogy I'm trying with friends is that a worker co-op is less like a company that does a specific thing, and more like a ship that sails where it's members wish it to go. It might present as a solid "WE ARE A COMPANY THAT DOES X", but it only does that so long as that serves its members. If the destination doesn't serve the crew, they create a new destination, they don't necessarily ditch crew members.

Also, the crew doesn't worry about the ship sailing away without them :)

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#136

Post by jp555 »

dbingham wrote: post #121
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

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. I…

Forcing no profits is central management at it's very worst - Setting prices causes many downstream derangements to markets.

A complex interconnected system will adapt in unforeseeable ways, causing novel externalities for which we have no built up immunity. Ask a soviet.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#137

Post by dls2016 »

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

Is the alternative to bank robbing a top-down central-managed solution? No, we simply penalize the behavior. We could do the same and penalize exploitation by corporations. Hold individuals accountable. Extreme fines. You may argue this would be complicated, but so is a lot of existing legislation surrounding international trade.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#138

Post by ghaff »

arkitaip wrote: post #51
nickbauman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter if it's large? I was just talking to a friend who started a small company, merged with a bigger company and thought he had done everything right. After a few years, he regretted selling the company. Small is beautiful. We learned this as children. Challenge the mantra of size and growth.

I agree but let's also understand the damaging dynamics we see on HN everyday where some people consider a multi million dollar operation a "lifestyle business".

"Lifestyle business" is generally not a very good term. On the one hand there's a small company that isn't very growth-oriented, throws off a modest amount of cash, and is very full-time job for the owner/operator. (Think a lot of franchise/retail or solo consulting.)

On the other hand, you have a business that generates a decent largely passive income that lets the owner take lots of time off and basically not work any harder than they want to.

I consider the latter a lot more lifestyle-businessy than the former.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#139

Post by eeZah7Ux »

jp555 wrote: post #126
antsoul wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Why are you being so dense?" is an example of a question that includes a statement.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#140

Post by spamizbad »

jp555 wrote: post #136
dbingham wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I…

Forcing no profits is central management at it's very worst - Setting prices causes many downstream derangements to markets. A complex interconnected system will adapt in unforeseeable ways, causing novel externalities for which we have no built up immunity. Ask a soviet.

Forcing profits is bad too. Just look at Boeing to see where the naked pursuit of profits can lead. It literally kills people.
Post reply on HN