Live data from Hacker News

Mondragon Corporation

en.wikipedia.org

161–170 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#161
post #88
post #81

The reason why Mondragon was able to grow to its current size is their credit union Caja Laboral. Under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco "people's savings banks" were allowed to offer higher interest rates than competing banks. Therefore local citizens would deposit their funds in Caja Laboral, which would fund more cooperative businesses. There's nothing special about the region or the culture, if you artificial…

And what about the rest of the country where credit unions also exist but we didn’t get more (at least not that much) of that type of artificially favoured business structure?

There are more around the country. It's very successful model in certain sectors like agriculture.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#162
While I do have a strong soft spot for the dreamy leftist ideal of worker cooperatives (and I'm happy and impressed that an example as big and long-living as Mondragon exists), I've recently started to find the much less anticapitalistic concept of b2b buyer cooperatives far more interesting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DATEV for example is doing just fine and feels as corporate as it gets (interviewed there once).

What's so interesting about b2b cooperatives? Recently we have seen the rise of market/directory platforms in fields where the network effect is so strong that it's impossible to sustain real competition for long and once they are effectively monopolistic they can squeeze entire industries dry at will, degenerating into pure rent seeking. Poster child example: there cannot be a second booking.com, the closest they have to competition is airbnb.

A buyer cooperative with the explicitly defined mission to just run the platform at low cost would be the perfect antidote and a massive improvement for everybody in the buying sector (those that purchase directory listings) and their customer base. It wouldn't even be an impediment to innovation because frontends could still be a multitude of conventional for-profits, they'd just not compete in listing breadth (they'd all get the same offers from the coop backend). Works roughly like that in the airline industries, despite multiple competing backends. The big difference: those backends are (were?) owned by airlines, not by outsiders trying to maximise value extraction.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some people will argue the issue there is time-horizons. If Boeing was worried about profitability indefinitely into the future, these sorts of repetitional disasters would factor in. But if everyone is looking quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year they won't.

The project timeline for the 737 MAX was at least 6 years. It was announced in 2011 and entered service in 2017. So you can run into this problem even when thinking 5+ years ahead.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#164
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody is forcing profits. If you want to start a non-profit aerospace company, nobody is stopping you.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#165

So some thing that are a bit less glamorous than described on the article is that one reason this works so well is because of the conditions of the place it runs in. This coop comes from the basque country, a northern autonomous region of Spain. It is a fairly rich area, with a huge port and industrial past and a pretty tight knit community. This generates an environment that allows for certain things to happen. One…

Spaniards would never do that, promoting Spanish products cause they are Spanish? now way... https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/nacidos_en_esp...

Motto is: "Born in Spain, admired through the world" (that is an official Spanish government site, for the record"

edit: site motto translated.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#166
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

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.

That's not a novel observation. Ronald Coase addressed this more than 80 years ago in the context of neo-liberal economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#167
There is also REI Collective in the USA

Real socialism is:

Mitchell Lama Housing Cooperatives

Food Cooperatives

Credit Unions

Employee Owned Companies

I define socialism as collective ownership of the means of production. By that broad definition, the public stock market — a quintessentially capitalist institution — would also be socialist, since corporations own most of the means of production in this country. So the definition needs to be refined a la Richard Wolff ... namely, DEMOCRACY inside an institution is socialism. One person - one vote. The extreme opposite of that is one share one vote where one person has so many shares that whatever he says goes:

https://medium.com/swlh/facebook-investors-cant-remove-mark-...

All of us who run a startup probably begin in a capitalist structure, but could be encouraged to transition to a socialist structure by giving employees more voting power once the business is thriving:

1. https://amp.ft.com/content/8a70b692-0967-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957...

2. https://www.hrcapitalist.com/2020/02/cards-against-humanity-...

I specifically thought to choose the domain “hrcapitalist” for their comments on this move to socialism:

”Cards of Humanity is doing an acquihire with a twist with this acquisition - they found a troubled company for sale, and believed in the talent that existed. BUT - this form of acquihire transfers wealth to the talent not directly to their bank account, but by giving them ownership in the company. That's a powerful retention tool, and if for some reason they can't make it work, the talent is sure to remember that Cards gave them a chance to save the company and turn it around through their investment and subsequent transfer of ownership. Moving acquired talent to ownership positions is a powerful play.”

This is what capitalists had to say about a move to socialism in this case.

I would argue that socialist institutions (much different than state-capitalism or its near-synonym: state-socialism) are preferred to capitalist ones, in the marketplace.

People form lines around the block stretching for years to get into the Mitchell Lama housing cooperatives in NYC. They have far lower costs than landlord-owned buildings, and yet the same level of facilities or better. They are effectively nonprofits, because they are run by and for the cooperators. Few vacancies because many people don’t want to leave, unlike the high turnover and 12%+ vacancy rate in privately owned buildings. I suspect credit unions vs banks are similar.

Workers in a company would not vote to ship their own jobs overseas or do massive layoffs.

So do I advocate libertarian socialism? Yes. I want to see more institutions be democratically governed, like many universities are close to it, etc.

Note: SOCIALISM is different than SOCIAL DEMOCRACY which is typically done on a city or state level to tax capitalist organizations and give public services and universal safety nets to everyone.

However, socialism isn’t a panacea. Newcomers are still hazed and treated just like countries treat peniless immigrants. So we need social democracy too. Perhaps one day social democracy will take place on a global level. (We are working on that at intercoin.org)

Finally... I should say there are better systems than socialism and capitalism, that involve UBI AND COLLABORATION rather than HUNGER AND COMPETITION. They are primarily gift economies found in the information space, and include:

Science

Open Source Software

Wikipedia

The Web

Cryptocurrency (as it was originally intended, ie scalable tech not the monolithic blockchain crap) was going to let the network be owned by participants and even VCs loved it for a hot second until the non scalability killed it (we’re working on that too).

Wikipedia vs Britannica

Web vs AOL

Science vs Private Alchemy

WebKit vs IE

You get the idea. Who wins? Hint: not the capitalism.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#168

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?

In my experience, this is a common misconception. In the union contracts I've worked with and under (entertainment industry), seniority is not a factor in compensation. More senior work roles generally earn more, but individual employees do not earn more by being in the job longer. It can be hard to restructure, demote or terminate employees in senior roles, but there is always a mechanism to do so. The one place where longer-serving employees generally cost the company more is severance obligations, but from a management perspective this is usually a good thing. The presence of a severance clause generally gives management the ability to terminate the employee under more permissive terms.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#169
post #113

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

> especial from the view from Chomsky's academic ivory tower

"I don't like Erik Satie or any of that stuffy, high falutin' classical stuff."

In both cases, the writer is unwittingly saying very little about the subject and very much about their ignorance.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While of course companies that operate in a non-market system and could take into account negative externalities, such as systemically important PRC or NorK SOEs, would never exploit workers or create bad working conditions - at home or in South America...

Exploiting workers is a negative externality.

No. A negative externality is a cost to a transaction that's not borne by one of the parties to the transaction (and thus cannot be priced into the transaction). "This job really sucks" is not an externality -- that fact is priced into what the worker demands in payment for performing that job. "Building this factory will incerase the risk of Terry down the street getting cancer" is an externality -- Terry is not a party to the transaction and cannot demand payment as compensation for the increased risk.
Post reply on HN