Ask Prof Wolff: Can Worker Co-ops Be Truly Democratic?

A Patron of Democracy at Work asks: "We agree that capitalism is imperfect and that it separates people into the employer and employee classes. However, resources needs to be planned, coordinated and managed otherwise chaos ensues. In many cases, resources are best handled in bulk to attain efficiency and affordability, and that gives rise to the need for concentration of control. Given that people are really not born equal, what system can then best balance all of the above?"

This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.

_________________________________________________________________________

“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.”

_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[flutieflambert]

Dear Dr. Wolff, aren’t worker co-ops missing an important lever of democratic control, namely, consumers and society at large? I agree that workers must own the means of production. But shouldnt the rest of society own the means of production as well? Shouldnt all citizens have voting power over the production and distribution of all commodities?

[drgutman]

One worker, one vote leads to the dictatorship of the majority at the expense of the minorities.
You're a professor, you should know that.
and
Any committee you set up, will fall to the Iron law of oligarchy.
jstor 4148876
Rotating them doesn't solve the problem, it only creates unnecessary friction.
What if nobody wants to be part of the committee? What if only one person is really really good at it and the rest suck really really bad? will you change them regardless of the results?

Also, very open and anti-capitalistic of you to ONLY take questions from those who pay you monthly on Patreon.

You're setting a great example.

What a joke

[AAudits]

If he reads the comments I could put it here I guess.

Question: With the understanding that worker co-OP’s are 1 person, 1 vote, what happens when the vote on a sensitive or contentious subject that the workers are strongly divided on ends up being extremely close, like 53 for — 47 against, for example. Those 47 people will inevitably be angry that they didn’t get it their way. Won’t this lead to animosity and possible in-fighting? In fact, in a Democratic voting system, aren’t there always going to be a significant number of workers that experience this not getting what they want scenario?

I propose an alternative where decisions are arrived at based on the most up-to-date information possible. I can elaborate if need be.

[alloomis]

of course not. the word means 'citizen rule, ' not 'worker rule.' everyone knows that. almost everyone.

[davidevans]

If the employer and employee are working for the same thing, and there is no employee/employer, but workers, and their Time is valued equally, the world is again free of money, and we're democratically in agreement, we need each other's time and skills . Time and skills banks of ourselves with laws to support that rather than money being the law, our legal tendering for the benefits unequally divided to the owners benefit in value and control of the direction itself. OUR leaders in an industry for example, are just trusted to perform their management skills for example, but they're never God over the others. The one thing money did do for humans by fluke perhaps for us, is that we found out we can work together often begrudgingly with this system of enslavement, so I think freely trading our own time snd skills banks separate from the enslavement to owners, would be what people have been praying for a LONG LONG TIME. if we're equal, your time and skills aren't worth more or less than anybody else. Who else is interested in a solution that works for everyone FAIRLY, RESPONSIBLY, and PROSPERITY, LIBERATED FROM A LONG STRETCH OF HUMANS ENSLAVING OTHERS FOR THEIR OWN GAINS.

[doctorcrypto]

I love these ideas. I believe that the rotation of executive directors is ideal. Everyone has great ideas and some may work better than others, but we'll learn much more from a diverse pool of ideas than a narrow field of ideas. People who think they're ideas are always best are ego maniacs IMO. Skills like crafts, etc. Are definitely something to consider. That's my two cents ✌

[emiebex]

I think so, when I worked at my local CO-OP shared Power among employees was the most important part. Nobody was higher or lower than anyone else. I can't guarantee every CO-OP will stay that way but they start out that way.

[jgalt]

Can the Professor read? We know most of his followers can't...this may explain why!

This is the actual question asked by our paying Ask Prof Wolff lottery winner...

A Patron of Democracy at Work asks: "We agree that capitalism is imperfect and that it separates people into the employer and employee classes. However, resources needs to be planned, coordinated and managed otherwise chaos ensues. In many cases, resources are best handled in bulk to attain efficiency and affordability, and that gives rise to the need for concentration of control. Given that people are really not born equal, what system can then best balance all of the above?"

But Wolff thinks the question is: Can Worker Co-ops Be Truly Democratic?

He then avoids the critical point..."Given that people are really not born equal"...and goes
on to reject it...saying "we all have skills"...and he hopes we will not "sacrifice" the
notion of democratic equality in favor

This brings us back to the Marxist foolishness of "From each according to their ability, to
each according to their need." which is a nonsensical concept.

But let us consider the consequences of believing this...if "equality of result" is
the "promise" of democracy...what is the motivation to invest any effort in acquiring
any skills beyond that which meets the "democratically determined" minimum????

[peterclark]

Adam Smith was specific on privately-owned businesses. He didn't like them. Because they spawned the neo-aristocratic, wealth without a deep connection to the community. There remains only one other option and that is an agglomeration of skills, tools, ideas, energy, etc., could lead to a Volkswagen, or a Boeing as long as those involved maintained 'community of purpose'. If humans just can't do that then the autocrats and the annointed will continue to frustrate human capacity. Ergo: centralising anything leads to societal failure - History's main theme; aka the Tytler Cycle. Read it and weep.

[deismaccountant]

More snap decisions are better handled by smaller bottom up groups. Offices and departments more strongly based on what’s called Dunbar’s numbers. It’s a big part of why I’m a Confederalist.

I also want to thank you for your take on perspective and neurodivergence.

[christopherfegley]

"Each according to her ability/each according to his needs."

[Tychoxi]

As Wolff I don't think productivity should be the end all be all but if you are worried about that consider this. People do tend to be more productive when they are happy at work and also when they feel ownership of the work they do. Additionally, after a few years, instead of having one person experienced in the leadership tasks and handling of those issues, you will have multiple people with that experience which has multiple benefits, including keeping or improving productivity under changing circumstances.

[gallectee]

Rotations of employees to the committee to make minor decisions is a smart solution.

[davidevans]

If we're all on the same side, there is no BOTH SIDES huh ?

[hailmaryrecordings]

Yes. Anyone wanting more control needs to be beaten & fired.

[kcottone]

Your answer about potentially trading-off organizational for democracy in a co-op worries me. That would be fine if co-ops didn't have to compete with capitalist organizations but that doesn't seem like it'd ever be possible. So how could co-ops be able to compete and stay alive? It seems like they'd only work if everyone agreed to be a co-op, which could only be enforced by violence or coercion.

I also think you brushed off concerns too easily about people having different intrinsic abilities. From my experience in life, some people are just constantly screwing up. Some are lazy, and some are so toxic to work with they they actually make more work for other people than they themselves contribute, acting as a net drain on the organization. How do we deal with those people? At least 10-15%% of all people are completely useless and would never benefit any organization.

[Urbanmediashowcase]

Can you explain how wages are determined? Some skills are harder than others and should be paid accordingly. How do you determine wait is fair? I would like to try to start a business like this but I’m new to this.

[BB-cfgx]

Filtering out the parasites and freeloaders is the hardest part of running a worker co-op.

[andyharold]

Have there been any books or articles giving a history of worker cooperatives, especially the ones that have been successful? These may go a long way in encouraging would-be entrepreneurs along these lines.

[peterstafford]

Can they make money? Will people want to invest their money in them? Those are the real questions. BTW, the only reason Wolf makes videos is so he can market his books. Its a very short trip over to Amazon.