[Someneck]

My dad worked 40 years for the Co-op and he was strong believer in Socialism and Unions.
He was one of the returning troops from Burma who voted Churchill out in a landslide and then the labour government created the NHS and social housing. So far so good.

I am a centrist and I am skeptical about Socialism and I hate the Tories.

My observation was that the profit part of the Co-ops sales was mopped up in inefficiency. The co-op operated like a local government with it's bureaucracy and lack of drive

In the end, the customers (members) got a small dividend and no cheaper prices, and the local shopkeepers were disadvantaged and closed down due to the dividend chasers

A lose-lose situation

You Socialists - how can Co-ops be made to operate efficiently and deliver lower prices that private enterprise ?

[travelert]

Since no one else will give the poor gentleman an answer I will:

They have to be linked inexorably to the community and with the social development of the environment in which they work in.In most cases this is no problem as ESOPS and co ops are ussually more efficient than their private counterparts.

in short they have to work within the community better...

look, its rather complicated to explain so I suggest you listen to these two prof's:

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar_Alperovitz
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff

[Goldberk]

how can Co-ops be made to operate efficiently and deliver lower prices that private enterprise ?

Perhaps a further question, Why should co-ops operate efficiently and deliver lower prices than private enterprise?

[Red Aegis]

There is a huge difference between a workers' co-op and a consumers' co-op. Someone already posted a link to Richard Wolff so I don't need to do that. I have helped compile a list of information and instructions for building and on workers' co-ops but can't post the link here since that would be spam. If you want it you can message me or if a mod says the link is permitted I will post it.

[Someone5]

Perhaps a further question, Why should co-ops operate efficiently and deliver lower prices than private enterprise?

What makes you think their objective is to do that? The goal of a workers' co-op seems to me to be the betterment of the workers and their own working conditions. There is an incidental objective of continued functioning, but only to the degree that it is required to maintain good working conditions (because one has no working conditions at all if the shop closes). Or, in other words, the co-op only needs to compete to the extent that they can continue to support working conditions the workers find most preferable among the available alternatives.

[Goldberk]

The goal of a workers' co-op seems to me to be the betterment of the workers and their own working conditions.

That may be a stated goal, but it is not realistic as long as they operate within a liberal economy, whilst a co-op will be able to provide better conditions than a non cooperative business they cannot provide a non commodified existence for their workers, labour remains a commodity, workers remain a commodity, indeed all aspects of life remain a commodity.

[stsoc]

There is a big difference between worker co-ops and consumer 'co-ops', depeneds on which ones are you taking about. So called "co-op individualism" is a type of socialist economy at work, whereas "co-op federalism" is just capitalism, where consumer societies are owners of some business and bosses of the workers in those businesses; and as far as I see, the OP is about "co-op federalism".

[Paradigm]

That may be a stated goal, but it is not realistic as long as they operate within a liberal economy, whilst a co-op will be able to provide better conditions than a non cooperative business they cannot provide a non commodified existence for their workers, labour remains a commodity, workers remain a commodity, indeed all aspects of life remain a commodity.

Indeed. Co-ops may help the cause of socialism by showing that workers can in fact manage themselves without a boss telling them what to do, but the fact that they must still compete in a capitalist system puts a great constraint on them. Once capital is taken out of the picture, the workers no longer must submit to competition, as the capitalists are the ones pitting them against each other. Instead, the economy can become one of cooperation, in which the means of production belong to everyone, and the free association of producers can finally be realized.

[lucky]

Once capital is taken out of the picture [...] the means of production belong to everyone

"Means of production" and "capital" are the same thing. Once capital is "taken out of the picture" (?), there are no "means of production".

[Conscript]

"Means of production" and "capital" are the same thing. Once capital is "taken out of the picture" (?), there are no "means of production".

Once capital is taken out of the picture, the means of production are held in common.

Capital only exists socially, the means of production will still be there physically.

[Paradigm]

"Means of production" and "capital" are the same thing. Once capital is "taken out of the picture" (?), there are no "means of production".

Quit being facetious. I'm referring to capital as a class.

[lucky]

I'm referring to capital as a class.

Why use the word is such a confusing way when you can refer to the capital owners as "investors" instead? Seems like an archaism of some sort.

[Paradigm]

Why use the word is such a confusing way when you can refer to the capital owners as "investors" instead? Seems like an archaism of some sort.

It's a common use of the term, and would not be confused by someone paying attention to the context in which it was used.

[Goldberk]

Once capital is taken out of the picture, the workers no longer must submit to competition, as the capitalists are the ones pitting them against each other. Instead, the economy can become one of cooperation, in which the means of production belong to everyone, and the free association of producers can finally be realized.

Absolutely but to a point, free association can never be achieved (at least in a complete sense) whilst the state remains.

[michael3]

[/quote]

Absolutely but to a point, free association can never be achieved (at least in a complete sense) whilst the state remains.[/quote]

Going back to the point held by all real Anarchists, that Capitalism is Authoritarian and coercive by It's very nature.

A 'free Market'? Yes. But not Capitalism, when the ideal goal is workplace democracy and worker ownership of the means of production. Otherwise you re-create the State in a more despotic form, merely a form of State Capitalism which reverts simply to a wealthy Oligarchy owning everything, such as in the PRC, with a Socialist figleaf....