I appreciate the analysis and “hard-headed” measurement of real progress vs. small victories. But what I really want to see is a long-term plan _plus_ short-term transitional steps–something that handles the immediate needs adequately while also having an eye on the final destination. Because some battles will be lost but we, humanity, can win the “war.”

It’s valuable to see the next chapter of the story of the window factory–having only known the first chapter, I have learned something clarifying. I think it is still significant that people are/were continuing in spite of low wages–_something is keeping them going_. What is it that is keeping them going?? That seems to be the key question. Autonomy? Freedom? Pride in work? less alienation? do they have other material benefits as well that aren’t in the form of money, but save them time, energy, or materials? And is there a third chapter–are they on their way to attracting more workers who are willing to take a pay cut for the cause? are they on their way to attracting workers who can’t currently afford such a steep pay cut, but once the company is slightly more prosperous can afford to join it? are they heading toward compromise or toward more radical freedom and empowerment? Maybe these are questions that can’t really be answered so much as decided by each individual moment-to-moment. Maybe we just have to try new experiments that haven’t been proved to work yet, and be the pioneers of something. What is the third chapter we, all of us, choose to write for this story??

In that regard, it’s a valuable thing to learn from what didn’t work–what was a fake victory–but to conclude from that about what won’t work in the future often leads to logical fallacies.

On another related subject: in general I believe that rather than focusing on “making capitalists sweat,” the focus needs to be on making all people thrive. When that is the focus, some people may sweat or be uncomfortable as a byproduct, and may even retaliate, but they are much less of a distraction. It seems to me important to leave the problem entirely out of focus and put as much focus as possible on solutions–ambitious, long-term, uncompromising solutions that aim all the way to world fairness, ecological balance, AND quality of life. This is a third way that avoids over-celebrating small, weak, fake successes on the one hand and criticizing even the first steps so that one never gets into action at all until unmeetable conditions are met.

Even if coops managed to force their own states to take the financial burden on for failed factories, then those states would have to face up to larger and more powerful states, and you just can’t get around the problem of needing world-wide agreement. The State is not an end solution, it is a transitional one.

Again, what I’ve kept seeing as a missing piece in these conversations is a “think longterm, act presently” focus. I think this thinking is not difficult. It doesn’t require more material resource, or very little, and is more about non-doing than about doing things. It may take practice and getting used to thinking differently, but it is not costly. Thinking is, essentially, a free resource. The social and emotional benefits of cooperation are real, and although they alone cannot feed people, they can do much. Longterm thinking that inspires–this is one of the socially bonding and emotionally enlivening resources freely available to all. Taking the best of the old–the indigenous ways, as one commenter mentioned–is perfectly compatible with this, while also recognizing that indigenous people are not a fixed entity but are also people, people who grow and change and have become stronger after having experienced more adversity and tried more experiments and learned more things. Longterm, uncompromising thinking that inspires, plus manageable steps that handle the needs of today, this is what I want to read more about. If anyone knows who’s written along these lines please post a comment here. Thank you.

In practise, they dont actually own the means of production – buildings are rented, etc. Whats worse is many are legally tied in to buy supplies from other coops. Overpriced, the money comes out of workers wages and sent up the food chain. And of course, the main food supplier coop has a huge divide between members and non member workers. A small clique of member workers, which u have to know the right people to get into, is actually profiteering off of all the other coopertive workers in the city.

Because its a cooperative no one says anything. I’ve had people accuse me of being intellectual and middle class for pointing this out but its all based on me and my friends lived experience.

It’s attributed right at the top in the “Excerpted from…” hyperlink.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/workers-control-coops-wright-wolff-alperovitz/

Like Frederick Engels & Karl Marx & other 19th century researchers such as Petr Kropotkin, my attention for sustainable full-participation economy is drawn to pre-colonial ‘INDIGENOUS’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) ‘ECONOMY’ (Greek ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-&-nurture’) from which both ‘capitalism’ (L ‘cap’ = ‘head’ = ‘wisdom of contributors’) & ‘socialism’ (‘associate’) are derived.

Engels & Marx draw upon the writings of Lewis-Henry Morgan’s ‘Origins of the Family, Private Property & the State’. Morgan bases his study upon the Haudenosaunee Confederacy of 1st Nations in New York, Quebec & Ontario. Kropotkin in ‘Mutual-Aid’ draws upon 1st Nations across Russia & Production-Society/Guild economic organization. Indigenous progressive-ownership participatory domestic, industrial & commercial economy integrates what are the dysfunctional-fragments of accounting, organization & trade lost in the colonial brutality of monetary capital & social economy.

Indigenous economy includes accounting for collective aspects of domestic-economy contributions in ~ 100 person Multihome-Dwelling-Complexes (Longhouse/Apartment, Pueblo/Townhouse & Kanata/Village). 70% of the world’s population today, live in ~ 100 person Multihomes. In order to re-establish full-participation economy, we need to start with all contributors such as those women who some of whom, manage the domestic family & community tasks as our core economy. By re-incorporating ‘community’ (L ‘com’ = ‘home’ + ‘munus’ = ‘gift-or-service’) domestic ‘spending’ economy back into industrial-commercial ‘earning’ economy we actually ‘double’ community income & capital. Domestic economy enables us to multiply or recirculate dollars, time & resources among us. We bring the voice of organized women & all generations back into integrated whole-life economic governance. Indigene Community as a group would love to share these most successful & profitable existing indigenous participatory economic business models as well as multi-stakeholder Community-Economy software which, our master programmers are developing to facilitate multihome & participatory economy for everyone, everywhere with P2P. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy

I think your comment John is warranted. However, having worked with diverse types and scales of business and ownership models, and having been involved as a worker owners as well, the challenge is how to design into a social change oriented business the means by which community benefit features in the mission do not get displaced. In our worker co-op an attitude developed over time that workers should not have to absorb the opportunity cost or slightly reduced incomes associated carrying out the non-paying social change work or the support of others to do so.

In the UK worker co-op movement we have a small but growing number of good quality worker co-ops who live up to right ideals, pay decent wages and fully compete in free market economy such as http://www.suma.coop. Yes they are not perfect but nothing is.

There is never going to be a grand revolution, the only way people will better themselves is through competing against capitalist businesses and winning and they need all the help they can get.