Cooperative movement is the only answer to Capitalism. This is the revolution. This is also an answer to top to down governance, trickle down economy and the global POVERTY. As it seems communist the international agencies have come up with Micro credit and micro finance. This is a just, democratic and empowering way of doing business. But it needs to be prioritized by the state intervention. Without support of state its may not achieve large scale impact. In India, initially we had a planned socialist model of development planing then agricultural cooperatives were used in order to ensure that the bottom 98% could get hand holding of the state for coming out of poverty. But today we are a part of global capitalism. Anyways thanks a lot for bringing this here. Gratitude.
I think you are right. State led movement is not a good idea. The very premise of cooperative movement is people led movement. States may harm or do good. But people won't self harm.
@@advprashantkumar My way of handling this all is to introduce a minimum effective tax so that businesses can't escape taxation (ie, Amazon, 2020)....UNLESS THEY ARE A COOPERATIVE. The newfound tax dollars can be used to help fund cooperatives (covering the issues with underfunded cooperatives) This will make cooperatives more viable, as well as incentivize their construction. But its very important to note that the government can NEVER, EVER enforce cooperatives. Giving it the power to do that gives them the power to control businesses. After decades of paradigm shift, we will get defacto socialism without any enforcement by the state. Things will get more expensive for the consumer because cooperatives pay better, but once the paradigm shift is in place, things will be relatively cheaper for the average consumer because the wealth is more properly distributed among the people. It might cost 7$ for a Starbucks equivalent coffee, but people are making 100$/hr
This is quite frankly, Native American culture. We had this figured out a long time ago. Happy that Americans are finally waking up to other modes of existence.
Actually, early settlers/Americans noticed it and practiced it with varying degrees of success in many ways for hundreds of years. The League of the Iroquois even inspired the concept of a federation of colonies. Unfortunately, corporations have been more successful in making sure that everyone is a wage slave instead of owning something for themselves. For All the People by John Curl is a really great book on the subject.
You said it, brother! And it was and should be women who held the land and its produce in trust for the endless generations---as in Minoan Crete, too, which was the first and most successful age of Western European civilization, with NO KINGS and brilliant practices that kept anybody from getting too much power. (Check that out in "Calendar House" at Ancientlights dot o-r-g.) People are good (or the world wouldn't work at all), unless they get too much power: like the psychopathic men who run the world right now. A place in the shale beside the dinosaurs is waiting for them, and here's a hope that we survive till then.
Ah yes, but what are these Corp's comprised of? Our fellow Americans! Let us not pass off the responsibility for the damage to some imaginary beings, or we'll never correct the anything but imaginary mistakes; more less what few shreds of "imaginary damage" is still remotely reparable...
One woman to another: Why women? Look at the damage done by the $hildabeasties? Go back to the original women's movement. They wanted equality; the men follow the rules that are laid out for the culture. What did the later generations turn it into? Yahoo! Now we can break all the same laws - literal and sociopolitical - and get away with it too! Who got screwed? The kids, the land, the water... I am so damned tired of my fellow females blaming everything they can on MEN! Even if, within certain parameters, most of them can be jerks/egocentric. They cast that aside over a beer. Women? Drag it all through the fucking office! Put up with sexism - often on their knees - till it benefits someone else more than they, and then they scream RAPE! And the decent, innocent gal who really was raped? She's terrified of being classed as said! Women aren't a bunch of angels hoping to save the world. Period. The societal issues that need to be addressed are GREED, DESTRUCTION, AND DISHONESTY, and the simple concepts of COMMON SENSE and COMMON DECENCY that could help to get rid of the first three! Gender bias would disappear.
I really like it. I just wish there was more in depth explanations about how to deal with a lot of dark realities. It's great to be in this for the right reasons, but you have to find a way to quickly respect expertise in a given field. I know there's a way to do it and I'm not using that as a reason to not commit to this approach, I just don't know how to overcome a lot of legitimate business challenges. Running a cooperative is much more difficult than a normal top down structure, in many areas, and much easier in others. For it to work honesty about the challenges seems critical. To take real action towards a practical structure you have to knock the political fairy dust off, and have specific explanations of how they've overcome challenges. I'm guessing the best thing you could do is to observe a well functioning cooperative, and really study their methods in depth.
@@KDemosh The guy in the video said that there was still a sort of informal hierarchy based on skill. I would say this is socialist if anything since the means of production is controlled by the workers. Even If there was a country where all businesses were co ops (which i am not against) they would still need to pay taxes to a higher government that would still need to handle things like police, military, public education, healthcare and welfare programs for those who are too old or disabled to work or to lift the poorest people up who cannot afford to buy into a co-op.
@@davidpeter4072 Anarchists still acknowledge deferring to those with skills that can be taught, we just don't see this as a top-down hierarchy. It's also arguable whether or not those other institutions would really be necessary, and why we don't replace them with more democratized co-op-like systems?
This video provides a practical guide for those interested in worker-owned cooperatives. It features conversations with worker-owners from various cooperatives such as Union Cab, Ginger Moon, Arizmendi Bakery, AORTA, New Era Windows, and more.
If only there was a way for wealthy people to invest in both workers co-ops and corporations and then pit them against each other on a level playing field. The evidence has shown that worker co-ops may be the most efficient form of business because workers who are part owner work harder and don't social loaf as much. I know most of us consider the ultra rich to be the enemy, but there must be some out there who ONLY want the most efficient form of business.
That's how working in a union shop feels as I recall. A sense of brother-sisterhood prevailed and despite managements established hierarchy, the work force operated as a cohesive unit with a well established seat at the table. We can do this with a shorter table and eliminate the waste of capitalist extremist tactics of siphoning profits away from those who generate it and suffer the consequence of wage slave mentality to serve the wealthy hedonistic class.
Dear The Laura Flanders Show, I give this idea freely for any cooperative. Having said this, yes other businesses too, as long as we all work towards implementing the New Deal II like the original to help every living soul on this soil as we all make for a funtime the enjoyment of restoring earths healthy sustainability for each of us present and future. I am ok under the NDII for a yearly giveback of 94%. Unless we have a worldwide AI program to halt unfair decisions at any level we must perform due diligence on anyone, any group, any business, any anything that is deemed unfair till AI is in full force. The AI can guide us for appropriate mediator if necessary to work towards making fair the outcome. If we are to be equals in the world we must reduce military to be assistive and return perhaps the same 94% monies back to and in the US Treasury by allowing Treasury to resume its duties per the Constitution. (Congress needs to deem the Federal Reserve null and void. Our Treasury does not make profits like the FED does. Do they file income tax as we do? Our Treasury remains in the public eye. Does the RESERVE?) By stating the US as equals to our most nearest and dearest global countries who want to share in same, each must remain so forever more all in the name of peaceful prosperity. The idea is for biodegradables, compostibles for home use unit with bio creating designed by all manufacturers dimensions specifications instead of plastics for home, auto, school, business, etc. When new mould breaks, all one needs to do is go to unit type in what you need even if you make many and toss the broken one into compost bin. You might be able to reuse same through proper planning of entire mould maker. Remoulding through heated hopper for broken pieces from say car, toy, etc. Add extra gel if all broken pieces aren't there. Think forward for unit design for a pull out extension for larger moulds. By keeping the process simple one could have a lot of fun with it. Remember to keep prices very fair including non toxic supplies if business. Once device is made co-op can sell for home use as well. Thank you. Sincerely, Don Suiters Clearwater Florida USA I'd like to picture another design for making original lightbulbs. If it turns out to a head scratcher, I'll redesign old style bulbs for proper simplicity in design and change out parts thereof.
Honestly this sounds like a business that just caps the highest salary at a reasonable ratio and let's the employees have a voice on how to improve things.
Also, when all the workers benefit from the profits, they can make sacrifices more efficiently than when the classic corporate model imposes those sacrifices onto those who can afford them the least, cutting on labor costs to keep shareholders happy with a minimum guaranteed income at the expense of those whose labor makes the income possible in the first place. This is the way that capitalism is supposed to work, because only when capital works for those who generate the capital in the first place, that the system becomes worthy. Also, Co-ops are the best way to explain how the USSR was actually state capitalism, when the government owns the means of production to create the false illusion that state owned is the same as public owned.
Not to quench the enthusiasm, but... there will come a time when you become fed up with process and want to outsource your engagement in the planning and decision-making to someone competent in those fields. The direct democracy of a coop only goes that far. You would need to make a choice about what your own role in the company should be, because you can't be everywhere all the time. And noone is good at everything neither. You have your strengths and weaknesses and it would be better if someone else took care of or represented you in the weak areas. I have met a lot of folks who are awful at planning, yet see themselves as excellent. I wouldn't want to be in a company where delusional people were part of the decision-making and planning. I would want professionals, not amateurs who think they are clever. How to you deal with that in a coop? Or do you just have to live with it?
Well in the video one person said that in the field they have their roles of expertise and only in the matters of the board does everyone have a say. Another person said that the group sought out legal advice, etc from people with knowledge and expertise to help the decision-making process. Another way to do it, is to assign a certain task to a working group and they report back to the larger group. In some coop structures, the workers elect a board that is recallable and has a fixed term of office. Slightly different context, but.. given the right resources in terms of information and input from professional advisors, it has been shown that a group of people chosen from the public through sortition to make important decisions on government policy can make sound decisions just as well as elected representatives.
Also, I understand this is worker democracy, but to take that logic to govt as a worker coop - civil servants would actually make all the laws without outside shareholders (other citizens) having any say. Govt and corporations are similar: ◇ Shareholders/citizens ◇ board/Congress or parliament ◇ executive committee/cabinet ◇ CEO, COO, CFO, ETC/senior civil service ◇ employees/civil servants The big differences I see are: 1) civil servants would have a share of the company and get to vote 2) in corporations, votes are not one person-one vote or one state (or corporate group)-one vote 3) in govt, the CEO is just the senior civil servant carrying out policies of the president and executive committee (or board if no committee) 4) in govt, the board is much much larger and divided into parties and geographical seats
Government is not business though. That's the biggest difference. One is enterprises that pursue specific functions in the market, the other is responsible for the infrastructure, defense, public services etc. Things that not only don't need to make a profit, but almost certainly should not make a profit.
Can cooperatives work without endless meetings? That's the bane of inefficiency in most workplaces. Is there a balance between democratic decisions on some things and not on others, that is, by entrusting someone to manage certain things, or even have more of an authority. Some people don't want to consider everything, to think about choosing everything about everything. The reason I ask is that most of these images include single interviews and meetings. I hate meetings, most people I've ever been to meetings with hate meetings.
Armin Kraemer meetings may be the cost of more financial freedom, look at supposedly "wealthy or successful" people.. They attend meetings more than they do any kind of labour.. Besides with technology today we can bet decision making will be made easier .. Theres forums. Online voting. Online schedule etc etc
Johanna Bell. Boom, there it is! The truth people can't deal with. This morning, I way thinking that how would workers that don't have the experience or drive would get paid in stock only. That way your pay fluctuates with profits. When you get to the point to expand, your "pay" will shrink because the company needs capital. When you don't sell your stock at a high point, you get less. Also how long will the top 3 people stick around when they realize the other "board" members are incapable of contributing? How long will the top 3 people stick around when they realize they are doing more work than the others for the same pay? Small co-ops might be able to survive, scale it up and see what happens. I think the idea with a bunch of small businesses networked might survive, but when you scale it up, they will crash. I was in a mall group of investors on a project and we all had different skills and experience. If the meetings were 30 minutes, for every one out of 10 people that didn't understand what we were doing, that extended the meeting by 10 minutes. The diversity was our multi faceted strength BUT, it was also a weakness that grew with adding more voices. I could have added 3 investors to that pool who while all independently are relatively successful, but they are lacking experience and are strong willed. That would have made every meeting painfully long. The solution? Don't invite them on the investment. The group organizer and person with the idea that we all supported hand picked the people for the project so we could have forward momentum. This meant excluding others. Including every voice has issues. When those voices negatively affect the income of all, what will happen? I'll bet there are 'other" meetings that not all folks get invited to....
@@Todd.T This is years ago, so sorry if it's no longer of interest, but all of these questions just need to be attended to intelligently. As an example, the company that I work in respects domain expertise, and gives domain experts independence. We set goals at a higher level; when there are decisions that are made better by the inclusion of more voices, we come together, and when the decisions are better made on a smaller scale, we empower this. The trick is we define what is better managed by all of us by what impacts all of us, and is a decision point we can all grasp and contribute to. Further, we don't create arbitrary hierarchies, but support people in exploring ideas. It's a universe of difference from other companies I've been a part of. There's no barrier to scaling this up, and it's not endless meetings at all, it's tremendously streamlined. People can volunteer to be parts of steering committees, but most decisions are just ongoing collaborative efforts on the smaller scale of domain focus. It's a question of designing the process. If there's a problem (too many meetings was an issue with one company I was part of) figure out what the problem is, and what you're trying to accomplish, and design a solution that gets what you need without creating the problem. Anyway thought you might be interested in a different way of looking at this, and while I know there's a lot of our egos wrapped up in these things so it's hard to hear other perspectives at times, I liked how you presented your critique, and that you in fact did have the solution we've been using implemented.
So what is the difference between partnership and worker coop? Both models have multiple employee-owners and can sell preferred stock. Some coops require a capital contribution before employment-ownership.
Rather than having two seperate comments you'd be better off copying and pasting the other one onto a seperate section of this one, your more likely to get what you are saying noticed then
Is anyone in a coop that would like to chat about relationships and dynamics about workers or potential co-funders further? There is a sort of Federation called Earth Worker here in this land (the colony known as Australia). I dream of starting one of it's chapters but I am not sure where to meet people that thinks alike here in the region known as Sydney.
could you please provide me with some resources, the websites are not working, maybe it will be a good idea if you attached some links . thank you from the Netherlands!
I wish that the documentary had addressed following issues. 1) How do Co-ops deal with the Free Rider problem and Adverse Selection? All I heard was some vague rhetoric about learning to function in a democracy and sharing the workload. 2) It sounds like Co-ops need significant upfront capital or expertise. How are young or poor workers suppose to get involved? 3) One could argue that successful Co-ops utilize workers who could have made far more money in the private sector. These skilled workers have merely traded money for flexibility, group benefits such as insurance, and job security. This sounds like a solution to making the lives of skilled middle class lives better, not solving income disparity and other economic woes. 4) Do Co-ops successfully compete with other businesses in the same field? Or are they basically charity cases that live off the pity purchases of hippies with real jobs? For those reasons I don;t really care a lot for this guide.
+jlevans1985 You addressed 1 pretty well. What do you mean possible? It is possible I could win the lottery. How easy is it for the young and poor to get a loan. And what are these mutual banks? As for 3 & 4 you do not address them. I know that a co-op is still bound up by economic fundamentals, but it sounds like it has two advantages that a similar business would not have. It sounds like co-ops will be able to "hire" higher skilled workers at cheaper rates. Co-ops products also come with a sense of smuggness. When a liberal person buys a banana at a co-op he not only bought a banana but he also bought a small slice of "sticking it to the man". As co-ops become more common these advantages would in theory be competed away.
it is clear you dont understand much about cooperatives or capitalism, nor do you really care based off your rude and asinine comments. not going to bother addressing your questions for these reasons.
@@jc6226 I thought I was very respectful. I am actually an economist researching alternatives to capitalism. I one of those rare Leftists trying to move the study away from how far right it has moved. These are just baseline questions that strike me as obvious. And the reason I asked them is assume someone in Co-OP community already has the answers? Perhaps I used to much jargon, and since you didn't understand it you assumed I was being hostile? Like for example do you know what adverse selection is?
@@tcironbear21 "Or are they basically charity cases that live off the pity purchases of hippies with real jobs?" = asinine and rude. "Perhaps I used to much jargon, and since you didn't understand it you assumed I was being hostile? Like for example do you know what adverse selection is? = passive aggressive and condescending
cultivate.coop/ no longer hosted at this address. Rather than just ask for changes in the description, I happily offer my volunteer services, I'll write out a google doc of the description with links and send it your way to copy paste!
GRITtv since the rest of the translat was very good, and as I didn't knew it was auto, we have 2 efficient options: you get the Dutch auto file, and replace succumb and put the better Dutch file were it must be put or uploaded, mio stupido I have no idea or you contact the programmers with my suggestion but seeing that there are at least 2 different ways in Dutch to translate succumb, it must be interpreted in the correct context.
