Worker cooperatives and unions

Should worker cooperative members also join unions of top-down capitalist business employees? Do unions still have a role to play in democratic workplaces, at least as long as capitalist businesses exist alongside them?

Attached: One Big Union.jpg (800x1000, 161.03K)

Idealistically, no, because that gives companies more of a chance to exploit them. Until capitalism vanishes I don't see a reason to.

Do unions still have a role to play in democratic workplaces, at least as long as capitalist businesses exist alongside them?

Tough question. They should have a role but until capitalist businesses cease to exist we can't have a truly Democratic workforce.

Perhaps not directly, but affiliation between umbrella groups of coops, and labor unions in the bourgeois economy, are common. For instance in South America's recovered factory movement.
In a wholly democratic economy, something resembling unions with the approximate function of political parties might become necessary to nurture new policy ideas and resolve popular disagreements about them.

Attached: era of good feelings.png (736x414, 291.05K)

Nobody should ever work.

Ok Bob Black

how come coops are being talked about as the most radical shit WE NEED TO DO right now when even Zig Forums is talking about coops being the next step forward for them? This along with the rising eco-fascism I think in 5 years everyone that isn't a "radlib" will be basically nazbol.

oh boy….can't wait. dis gun b gud.

Cooperatives are a pretty well-known strategy for obtaining economic independence, capital, and organizational power. You can be a liberal or a fascist and promote co-ops to encourage gentrification or channel money to your fringe political project, but IMO the most interesting use for co-ops would be to promote a federation of cooperatives that could organize workers together and perhaps form the base of an independent socialist party, while allowing for internal experiments in economic planning and distribution among members without relying on state power.

If socialists can't provide an answer to environmental degradation besides techno-utopianism and MMT chicanery, there will be no other refuge for people other than right-wing tribalism.

Eco nazbol

Also, haha

Build the new system under the wheezing hulk of the old, rendering its responsibilities and powers irrelevant one by one. When it dies, and we arise full of vitality from its mummified ruins, its passing may not even be noticed.
That is precisely the best political angle to tackle environmental issues, because most other approaches have a dangerous tendency to drift into moralistic lifestylism. Such approaches ignore massive civilization-level changes in the structure of industry, trade, infrastructure, etc., that would make human civilization completely sustainable with little or no impact on the daily life of the typical prole; in favor of pseudoscientific LARP-y SJW faggotry about being vegetarian, not taking vacations in faraway places, living in cramped bugman blocks, etc., all of which are extremely unpopular among proles and give porky the blind eye needed to continue procrastinating.

Attached: 0*W4_nuKJfMoLSdWIz.jpg (1024x509, 167.07K)

What do you means about this? Soy?

I hear Hitler ate a burrito one time. Better not do that…

The MMT socdems of today are the eco-fascists of tomorrow. Eventually politicos will realize that it is not possible to promise rising consumption, economic growth and mass industrial employment, while meaningfully reducing carbon and other pollution AND providing asylum and aid to those fucked over by climate-driven disaster or famine. EU social democracies are already pretty good at letting refugees die along their borders, and if industry/commodity flows refuse to be scaled back, the only solution is to strengthen the borders and create walled islands of prosperity amidst the planet of burning slums.

Attached: walled-world2.jpg (1280x960, 334K)

how? you seem to forget not all deep ecologists align the same way. Camatte on the left and Linkola on the far right.


Reminder that the point of MMT isn't some giant change to the way capitalism works, but honesty about the way every central banker secretly knows it already works as of a century ago when fiat currency was adopted. In its very strongest form, MMT is just the exhortion to view the economy as the sum total of human and material resources we have at hand, rather than meaningless magic numbers, so that we can bend the whole of those resources to the goals we wish to accomplish.

Attached: bbr_why_ee_upgrades graph_11-24-14.jpg (720x540 48.06 KB, 52.93K)

sounds reasonable, maybe you're just less nihilistic than I am

The problem here is that people conceive unions only in the class struggle sense. This is fine when it comes to fighting capitalism, but unions also need to prepare themselves to be the organ from the new society shall be organized on.

Unions are merely the modern version of the medieval guild. They are an integral part of our Western civilization, and the building block of an urban republican society. This is why unions ironically should also provide training for workers and generally provide skilled workers to business. This isn't to please management, but rather to establish a powerbase for unions.

So, unions are modern guilds. This is where cooperatives can play a role in unions. Unions with cooperatives in them are essentially guilds: an industry/craft-wide organization of businesses. Cooperatives should be admitted as collective entities within the unions. I also think that unions should be confederations of crafts/vocations within any given industry, perhaps with a bicameral system to represent cooperatives/workers of a given business in one house and vocations in another.

Unions should also focus more on taking over more shares of corporations, fighting against progressive/affirmative action policies, and for more role in management. The goal should be less about better payment and more about power. Unions should be just as militant in seizing power as their corporate counterparts if they want to compete.

Inb4 the accelerationists say that concessions merely placate workers, the reality is that revolutions that are successful in the long term happen among people who already have significant power and liberty. The Roman plebeian simply had to secede to remove Patrician privileges. The American yeoman farmer similarly had the tools needed to achieve liberty that went far beyond that of European peasants. The Swiss and Frisians were similarly free due to having a strong yeoman farming class. The modern version of this class is the unionized and cooperative worker in my opinion.

no, porky has no place in the union

I don't get it.

Most MMT proponents are socdems, and of them this is an accurate take. MMT itself though is just being aware of how the money system works. No shit most people like that are going to be socdems these days, where the left is basically dead. Understanding MMT can be useful in explaining to people that radical change is possible. A lot of the basis for suppressing class consciousness is a false image of how the economy works, that it's this delicate balance between taxing and spending.


These contradict each other. Understanding how the macro-economy functions isn't orthogonal or merely complementary for socialist theory. It's necessary. Marx's analysis of capitalism was based on an economy that had a different structure. MMT actually lends itself extremely well to contextualizing labor as something that we can just go and do, that you don't need to find the money for it. The abandonment of the gold standard and conversion of money to fiat currency is actually huge because it's already laid the groundwork for cybernetic economic management for us. Even just a market socialist system with a for-real democratic government would effectively push us toward a planned economy.

benis lol

Most socialist theories, as part of other goals, tend to phase out the use of money entirely, or at least for nearly all applications, so MMT would no longer be terribly relevant under them. To be sure, an accurate, factual understanding of how capitalism works is extremely helpful to the success of any given socialist theory today in transitioning away from capitalism, so any socialist who doesn't understand MMT is IMHO shooting themselves in the foot.
Remember that was the doing of Keynesianism (and before it, populist ideas like bimetallism), which MMT was created to understand the consequences and exploit the possibilities of, but did not causally motivate or play a part in the creation of.

We're on different pages here. I'm talking about the opposing capitalism phase up to the building a transitional system phase. It's not about how to build a socialist society, but how to understand what we have now and how it could transform. That's a critical component to any non-utopian socialism.

Uh… I wasn't claiming anything like that. MMT is just an attempt to understand how the economy works, and the recognition that that transformation happened instead of pretending the economy obeys the old rules.

Oh, certainly then, MMT can definitely help in designing a transitional system.