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

271–280 of 291 posts

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#271

Post by spaintech »

cies wrote: post #2

From the article: At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in their cooperative. For most workers, this ratio is smaller…

Wait, what most here are not discussing is the true nature of this organization. Historically, this cooperative was designe as a system to pay out the Basque cause, a separative movement with is Spain. This cooperative has/will be discriminatory based on your political views. Also, it’s imperative to say that most of it’s financing has at times come into question as they have received strong and at time ilegal funding from the Basque government, creating an unfair compete climate where other business could not thrive and where forced to concede to go into the group or just fail. Their business practices come from a captive market (with a strong political pressure to be in the status quo or else) which keeps competition on the sidelines. If you are a serious contender with in the Basque region of Spain, you wake up to pickets, and your factory on fire, so it might sound good at first, but there is nothing but smoke and mirrors in this organization. So, sure with a favorable financing, wage control, and captive market, you can really build a corporation that can then expand and compete outside of their core “captive” markets. Anybody know of a good dictatorial nations to start another model company like this?

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#272

Post by spaintech »

leftyted wrote: post #101
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its better because its local is not xenophobic, its better because its from within some made up geographical boundries is. There are tons of objective reasons to promote local products, we have incredible soil and weather, we have a historical tradition of shepherding and sea faring. But none of that is promoted, its the "its from here" with vague connotations. It is a large corporation that has had a huge trouble ex…

"Buy local" is not xenophobic. Everyone knows that "buying local" is about supporting local jobs/industry. There's nothing xenophobic about caring more about your neighbors than some people you'll never meet thousands of miles away. If it is to be a meaningful term, xenophobia has to be about fear or hatred. It can't mean "favoring local over non-local".

Sure, but in this region it’s more like buy my local good for you product, sure it’s a little more expensive but.... “OR ELSE”... Many have been driven out of their town or even killed (yes that is what I said) if you go against the status quo in the Basque region. Mondragón would not exist for not for the Basque cause... and most likely (it’s been their financial arm) the Basque cause would not have existed with out Mondragón.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#273

Post by rapind »

shadowgovt wrote: post #258
dls2016 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to the current US system where large shareholder-owned corporations dominate the market, which lets them grow, which is a positive feedback loop in that incentive structure?

Yes. The system that currently exists is very realistic, by definition. To be clear, I'm criticizing the notion that small worker-owned / worker-managed corporations and a free market are an inherently stable structure (because free markets will favor consolidation). I'm not against large worker-owned / worker-managed corporations, and I think they could be a significant improvement on the ecosystem of shareholder-ow…

I would agree. I think overall big picture analysis is good too. But if we can agree that there's an improvement to be made we should start to work iteratively towards that improvement keeping an eye out for further improvements and lessons. For starters we could make it easier to start and run worker coops. Next step would be to implement some small incentives (even getting the money from cutting currently awful subsidies in corporate welfare!).

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#274

Post by chishaku »

tptacek wrote: post #269
chishaku wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This textbook response doesn't address what often happens in reality. Wages don't always capture the true costs of production. The public burden of the coal miner who gets lung cancer can be viewed as a negative externality. Indeed, many labor protections in the US seek to specifically address this type of externality.

No, it doesn't address the phenomenon that the grandparent comment was concerned with (worker exploitation). But it doesn't claim to. It simply, and correctly, establishes that worker treatment isn't an externality. "Textbook" definitions have nothing to do with it.

> it doesn't address [worker exploitation]

This is my point. Ignoring concerns of worker exploitation and focusing on textbook definitions comes off as dismissive, even if that wasn't the intent.

Similarly, your comment comes off as dismissive which highlights the importance of the context that I added.

Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#275

Post by tptacek »

chishaku wrote: post #274
tptacek wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't address the phenomenon that the grandparent comment was concerned with (worker exploitation). But it doesn't claim to. It simply, and correctly, establishes that worker treatment isn't an externality. "Textbook" definitions have nothing to do with it.

> it doesn't address [worker exploitation] This is my point. Ignoring concerns of worker exploitation and focusing on textbook definitions comes off as dismissive, even if that wasn't the intent. Similarly, your comment comes off as dismissive which highlights the importance of the context that I added. Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.

All 'rayiner said was that worker exploitation isn't an externality. The comment to which he was responding said literally nothing other than that worker exploitation was an externality. Worker exploitation is not an externality. I'm not sure how you're finding a way to object to this.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#276

Post by chishaku »

tptacek wrote: post #275
chishaku wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't address [worker exploitation] This is my point. Ignoring concerns of worker exploitation and focusing on textbook definitions comes off as dismissive, even if that wasn't the intent. Similarly, your comment comes off as dismissive which highlights the importance of the context that I added. Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.

All 'rayiner said was that worker exploitation isn't an externality. The comment to which he was responding said literally nothing other than that worker exploitation was an externality. Worker exploitation is not an externality. I'm not sure how you're finding a way to object to this.

I've not objected to the definition. I'm adding nuance that you're still trying to dismiss.

Worker exploitation does result in negative externalities, even if the exploitation itself is not an externality.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#277

Post by _fq4v »

pdonis wrote: post #231
tathougies wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revenue is dictated by the various consumer demands of mainly individuals and families.

In a free market, yes. Again, "free market" is not the same as "capitalism". The robber barons who got the US government to grant them monopolies of railroad routes in the late 19th century were capitalists; but their revenue was not "dictated by the various consumer demands of mainly individuals and families".

Robber barons are not part of 'capitalism' either. If you have a free market of goods and a free market of labor, then you inevitably have capitalism, since someone will acquire enough money to hire labor to operate his productive goods.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#278

Post by monadic2 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #255
monadic2 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbh I do not think Chomsky has written on his ideals the way others have, much of his positions are extrapolated from his critiques on other states (please correct me if I am wrong). However he has positively identified himself as an anarchy-syndicalist. There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large: convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid econom…

> There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large I agree, but I believe a firm past a critical mass of size can defend against all of them, and defense breeds the resources for further defense. > convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives > seizing its assets an…

> Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives

How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s.

> Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence.

How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property.

> No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration.

How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#279

Post by shadowgovt »

monadic2 wrote: post #278
shadowgovt wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are multiple ways an anarchist society might respond to a corporation growing too large I agree, but I believe a firm past a critical mass of size can defend against all of them, and defense breeds the resources for further defense. > convincing its workers to split or find work elsewhere to avoid economic collapse Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives > seizing its assets an…

> Unlikely if the firm's size lets it offer better life than alternatives How do you figure? This implies the compensation is different from other "firm"s. > Hard if a firm's size grants it the ability to challenge monopoly on violence. How do you figure? Monopoly typically implies private property. > No longer possible if the firm is large enough to have vertical integration. How do you figure? Monopoly typically im…

How does one seize a firm's assets if a firm has no private property? That implies the firm has nothing to seize because it has nothing.

Re: Mondragon Corporation

#280

Post by einpoklum »

tsimionescu wrote: post #152
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

Chomsky is anti-centralization, he is an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist). In general, his ideal end-goal world would include smaller states with more direct control by the populace, with worker-owned and worker-managed corporations, with free markets of goods and services between different corporations and different states, and of course freedom of movement. Strong environmental control would be almost implied if the…

> In general, his ideal end-goal world would include smaller states with more direct control by the populace

That's certainly not Anarchism, in which there are no states and no commercial corporations. And of course - no markets.

Now, as for what Chomsky supports personally - that's more difficult to say, since he's been known to support Democrats in US politics, to support a two-state arrangement in Palestine etc.

Post reply on HN