Oh this is right up my interests! This looks like a super interesting model for the day after the revolution.
One thing I would say is that worker cooperatives not having the rigour, scalability and sophistication to scale up is generally dependent on which economic communities a person is most familiar with. The Mondragon federation has a sophisticated network of research and development, education, and new business incubation. Worker cooperatives in the Emilie-Romagna region have a new enterprise failure rate of 7% (compared with the usual 50% for small businesses) but they make up 30% of the GDP.
It just a pity that in the Anglophone world we tend to view cooperatives as a hippy niche. That being said the PCP model does usually import a broader democratic deliberation internally to the enterprise model which is incredibly useful where democratic economic practices are the norm.
For what it's worth, the authors do not necessarily present the PCP as a revolutionary entity. It's meant, according to their argument, as a transitionary institution that operates within our current system and paves the way for an exit from capitalism. I guess reasonable minds may disagree on what is or isn't revolutionary but just wanted to clarify that the authors present this as something that can work now. No need to wait.
Interesting. I haven’t read the book yet hence my ignorance. I would caution that the more complicated the model in a prefigurative environment the harder it will be to get something started — of course this I hold lightly as just a single factor.
Sure, agreed. And one thing I probably didn't articulate well is that the authors don't argue that worker co-ops can't sufficiently scale. That applies more to mutual aid. I think their argument is more that worker co-ops are still subject to the logics of capitalism. Although they discuss many forms of worker co-ops that differ and some resemble PCPs in some ways.There's a lot more in the book than I could reasonably cover in a review
For those interested in the history of the Cooperative movement, take a look at the work of Robert Owen, said to be the founder of the Co-op movement.
Owen disliked the exploitation of the working class and introduced his theories in a very successful cotton mill in New Lanarch, Scotland where Owen provided housing, schooling, and a living wage to his employees.
In Australia, since the mid 1800s farmers co ops, and consumer co ops were common. Norco, a dairy farmers co ops was formed in 1895 and still operates successfully. Golden Circle was a pineapple growers coop, with its cannery opening in 1947. Golden Circle was corporatised in 2008.
Credit Unions first formed in Australia in 1945 were widespread, however the very profitable banking sector in Australia has been permitted to consolidate banking with amalgamations and take overseas.
The consumer co ops and some farmers co ops became uncompetitive with the arrival in Australia of the suburban supermarket.
The Workers Cooperative is a comparative new thing but becoming more common. When the corporate world no longer sees a profit, rather than closing down workers United, formed a Cooperative and purchased their employers business that then runs in the employees interests, under their direction. Co ops are not new and many have been extremely successfull.
No doubt that society needs new ownership and governance structures that serve stakeholders better. It’s interesting to me, however, to point to a brand new type of structure that has not yet been road tested (or maybe it has?) as a single bullet solution.
As a compliment to this book, I’d recommend Mutualism by Sara Horowitz, which paints a clear picture of how Mutualist structures like unions, co-ops, mutual aid networks, and churches have been a far larger part of the American economic story than we often give credit. It explains how these structures have been warped and undermined at specific points in history, leaving only remnants of what we once had. Early unions created banks, hospitals, insurance companies, and even vacation communities that centered the needs and interests of workers. Many of these still exist today but have been stripped of some key functions. And there are many examples, especially in Italy and Spain of mutualist economies that continue to thrive. Mondrian being one well-known example.
As someone who has experienced the massive tensions and challenges of multi-stakeholder decision-making first hand, I would love to hear real life examples of PCPs in action (maybe this is in the book?) before pushing for these structures as one big broad (untested?) solution. And would seriously advocate for humanity to look into our past, present, and hidden corners of our existing economies to see what practices work in real life and why.
How can we create, protect, and resource models that side-step the profit-hungry dimensions of capitalism and center real practical needs of real people? These models will be varied, localized, and adaptive. And examples may exist all around us if we have the discernment to see them and lift them up.
Neither I, nor the authors, characterize PCPs as a "silver bullet", nor discourage other types of organizing. The book has examples, which I state in the piece here.
Fair! I’ve spent two decades as an implementer and organizer within community and economic development, and supported hundreds of social enterprise founders. I’m a believer in structural innovation, and have found that stating big ideas in practical terms is key for getting traction & real world impact.
My comment was not trying to rain on any parade of a promising model. Just stating my interest as a practitioner to hear what makes you excited about this model specifically and/or where you or the authors have seen it work.
Oh, that sounds like a great read. Some of this reminds me of The Serviceberry by Robin Wall Kimmerer (a book I highly recommend).
Thanks for the rec! This book sounds like it needs to go to the top of my TBR pile.
My question is, when it comes down to little old me, how do I help create such a system?
As a Sole Proprietor of my business, how do I not feed into the capitalist machine while also ensuring a stable and abundant future for my family?
If the entire organism is sick, how does this one little cell contribute to a healthier way of being?
Oh this is right up my interests! This looks like a super interesting model for the day after the revolution.
One thing I would say is that worker cooperatives not having the rigour, scalability and sophistication to scale up is generally dependent on which economic communities a person is most familiar with. The Mondragon federation has a sophisticated network of research and development, education, and new business incubation. Worker cooperatives in the Emilie-Romagna region have a new enterprise failure rate of 7% (compared with the usual 50% for small businesses) but they make up 30% of the GDP.
It just a pity that in the Anglophone world we tend to view cooperatives as a hippy niche. That being said the PCP model does usually import a broader democratic deliberation internally to the enterprise model which is incredibly useful where democratic economic practices are the norm.
For what it's worth, the authors do not necessarily present the PCP as a revolutionary entity. It's meant, according to their argument, as a transitionary institution that operates within our current system and paves the way for an exit from capitalism. I guess reasonable minds may disagree on what is or isn't revolutionary but just wanted to clarify that the authors present this as something that can work now. No need to wait.
Interesting. I haven’t read the book yet hence my ignorance. I would caution that the more complicated the model in a prefigurative environment the harder it will be to get something started — of course this I hold lightly as just a single factor.
Sure, agreed. And one thing I probably didn't articulate well is that the authors don't argue that worker co-ops can't sufficiently scale. That applies more to mutual aid. I think their argument is more that worker co-ops are still subject to the logics of capitalism. Although they discuss many forms of worker co-ops that differ and some resemble PCPs in some ways.There's a lot more in the book than I could reasonably cover in a review
Oh cool
For those interested in the history of the Cooperative movement, take a look at the work of Robert Owen, said to be the founder of the Co-op movement.
Owen disliked the exploitation of the working class and introduced his theories in a very successful cotton mill in New Lanarch, Scotland where Owen provided housing, schooling, and a living wage to his employees.
In Australia, since the mid 1800s farmers co ops, and consumer co ops were common. Norco, a dairy farmers co ops was formed in 1895 and still operates successfully. Golden Circle was a pineapple growers coop, with its cannery opening in 1947. Golden Circle was corporatised in 2008.
Credit Unions first formed in Australia in 1945 were widespread, however the very profitable banking sector in Australia has been permitted to consolidate banking with amalgamations and take overseas.
The consumer co ops and some farmers co ops became uncompetitive with the arrival in Australia of the suburban supermarket.
The Workers Cooperative is a comparative new thing but becoming more common. When the corporate world no longer sees a profit, rather than closing down workers United, formed a Cooperative and purchased their employers business that then runs in the employees interests, under their direction. Co ops are not new and many have been extremely successfull.
No doubt that society needs new ownership and governance structures that serve stakeholders better. It’s interesting to me, however, to point to a brand new type of structure that has not yet been road tested (or maybe it has?) as a single bullet solution.
As a compliment to this book, I’d recommend Mutualism by Sara Horowitz, which paints a clear picture of how Mutualist structures like unions, co-ops, mutual aid networks, and churches have been a far larger part of the American economic story than we often give credit. It explains how these structures have been warped and undermined at specific points in history, leaving only remnants of what we once had. Early unions created banks, hospitals, insurance companies, and even vacation communities that centered the needs and interests of workers. Many of these still exist today but have been stripped of some key functions. And there are many examples, especially in Italy and Spain of mutualist economies that continue to thrive. Mondrian being one well-known example.
As someone who has experienced the massive tensions and challenges of multi-stakeholder decision-making first hand, I would love to hear real life examples of PCPs in action (maybe this is in the book?) before pushing for these structures as one big broad (untested?) solution. And would seriously advocate for humanity to look into our past, present, and hidden corners of our existing economies to see what practices work in real life and why.
How can we create, protect, and resource models that side-step the profit-hungry dimensions of capitalism and center real practical needs of real people? These models will be varied, localized, and adaptive. And examples may exist all around us if we have the discernment to see them and lift them up.
Neither I, nor the authors, characterize PCPs as a "silver bullet", nor discourage other types of organizing. The book has examples, which I state in the piece here.
Fair! I’ve spent two decades as an implementer and organizer within community and economic development, and supported hundreds of social enterprise founders. I’m a believer in structural innovation, and have found that stating big ideas in practical terms is key for getting traction & real world impact.
My comment was not trying to rain on any parade of a promising model. Just stating my interest as a practitioner to hear what makes you excited about this model specifically and/or where you or the authors have seen it work.
The authors have. They wrote a book about it