From: Michael Hoover <hoov-AT-freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Subject: Re: M-I: Cooperatives?
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 23:22:41 18000


Justin S:
> Finally, as far as  I know, while the evidence that cooperation decreases
> alienation is mixed--there is not only the evidence that Louis cites, but
> also Greenberg's famous study of the Pacofic Coast plywood coops--there is
> no evidence suggesting that cooperation fails on other important socialist
> values. It enhances job security. Coops don't lay people off, generally,
> even in hard economic times. It promotes democracy where the coops are
> democratically managed. It eliminates exploitation, since the cooperators
> appropriate the surplus. 

There are 2 types of producer coops in the US: 1)"working share"
structure ties participation to ownership of capital.  A worker-owner
is guaranteed one vote by purchasing a certificate of ownership.  The
purchased "share" reflects the market value of the firm; 2) "all
employees" structure is based on an ownership fee unrelated to the
market value of the firm.

The former have tended to create a two-tiered workforce because there
exists a reluctance to issue new memberships on the premise that they
will dilute the value of each share.  Thus, a strata of hired laborers
with no rights to share profits, security, or control develops (see
Russell et al., & Greenberg).  The latter model ensures that all
workers are owners and, therefore, represents the most radical 
departure from capitalist workplace relations.

Coops have been advanced as an alternative to unemployment when
capital flight occurs.  Plywood firms in the Northwest were created
for this reason.  Studies indicate, however, that higher wages and
entrepreneurialism are the strongest motivations factors (see
Greenberg & Rhodes and Steers) - variables reflecting the
internalization of individualism through years of capitalist
socialization.

Present day coops are profitable.  Members also express high levels
of stisfaction and commitment.  And, dutring a 10 year period,
productivity per worker was 42% higher in foundry coops when compared
to conventional firms in the industry (see Jones).  These factors are 
not indicators, however, of the democratic and socialist potential of
the coop model.

The "working share" model contains inherent inequities limiting its
transformative possibilities.  Worker-owners, for example, express
higher levels of collective responsibility, greater commitment to
cooperation on production matters, job rotation and innovation, and
more positive attitudes about influence and participation than
workers in conventional firms (again, Russell & Greenberg; also
Nightingale).  The irony is that these attitudes develop in the
context of a two-tiered workforce - worker-owners and hired laborers.
The inequality of opportunity and condition resulted in a marked
decline in attitude among the latter.  Thus, a contradiction between
the social and individual reproduced certain self-employment values
in worker-ownerrs.  In fact, unions representing hired labor in plywood
coops consider them to be regressive employers ands their plants to
be among the most hazardous in which to work in (see Lembcke).

Worker-control in the plywood coops of the Northwest and refuse
industry of the San Fransisco area is inimcal to the objectives of
a movementr for democracy and socialism.  Differential status -
worker-owners and workers - resulting in preferential treatment
for jobs and unequal opportunity for income is inconsistent with
the principle of equality.  And, the continuing use of wage-labotr
perpetuates the capitalist practice of accumulation based upon
exploitation.  Self-interest, even as a collective entity, is
reproduced in thqat the entity remains tied to its property-
ownership.  About half of the plywood foops, for example, have been
taken over by the monopoly sector of the industry making them
improbable economic alternatives (again, Lembcke).

and now for some shameless self-promotion: the above comments are
>from my piece "The Limits of Worker-Ownership" in the 1987
inaugural issue of Nature, Society, & Thought.  A bit dated, but
the premise remains sound.  I've seen several references to
ESOPs in recent posts and will try to find some time to send
along some of the section of my article that address them...Michael


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---