He doesnt work in a co-op


Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/The myth of Mondragon Cooperatives, politics, and working class life in a Basque town.pdf.

Co-ops are self exploitation.


Co-ops are the same as a normal capitalist workplace except with more busywork on the workers end. You're better off joining a union.




Unions are of more use to workers.

Who is this smug demon?

Yeah you let Brad and Chad take your surplus value instead


No they arent, unions are shit, full of corruption and neopotist as fuck

The girl from shimometa

So are co-ops. People who fetishize co-operatives have no idea how they're ran.

I'd like to, but there's none around. Probably will end up starting one so I can make movies without sucking as much porky cock. If it fails I'll probably od or go into porn.

Unions are either dead, dying, or irrelevant collaborationist in burgerstan. And national Right to Work legislation will kill what is left. Co-ops are a more workable option that provides a better standard than I currently have.

While that'd be great, there's no proletarian terracotta army to command and being a neet isn't an option for me.

leftcoms fancy themselves bulls, much like M-Ls studying for a business degree program that doesn't offer credits yet so that they can become the plant dictator


So cucked!



Leftcoms are dumb

Is there a directory of Co-ops anywhere? I'd like to apply to some but it's hard since "Co-op" is a fancy name for internship


So my choice is to make less and not be stolen from? I'll take the theft if it means better material conditions for me.

No one here would have a problem with that numbnuts.

So, I haven't read anything by leftcoms. If one of you could explain this to me, it would be good.

It seems to me that the opposite of "self-exploitation" that you work purely for/and by yourself is logically incoherent, in a society where people are entangled and dependant on each other. Work will always be for something, someone, or some idea, because our very selves are inter-subjective?

Did Bordiga ever read Hegel?

Have you ever seen liberals complain about microaggressions? something as pathetic as that

we should make one, maybe come up with proper standars of operation and search for some, and if they meet our criteria, add them

maybe we could create a google maps page

Rosa Luxemburg put it well in reform or revolution:

Anyone who says socialism is economic democracy is a liberal shill

So if the co-op is the hybrid form, then what's after that? I'm having trouble understanding what the end of capitalism is exactly.

Communists actually do not delude themselves into strictly conceiving capitalism as hierarchical, thus not being classcucks.

To display this point further, the work "The Myth of Mondragon: Cooperatives, Politics, and Working-Class Life in a Basque Town" is pretty great. It's an enthograpy of the Mondragon Cooperative system, which is typically held to be the paradigmatic cooperative. This book shows that there's still class conflict in workers' cooperatives, which is merely masked by the cooperative form of the enterprise. It is here available on libcom: libcom.org/files/The myth of Mondragon Cooperatives, politics, and working class life in a Basque town.pdf.

(Another interesting thing to note on the subject of Mondragon, is that Franco, while totally annihilating the CNT in Spain, held arrangements with Mondragon to let it remain an independent cooperative business, because it went along well with any regime, right-populistic, i.e. Falangist, or Spanish revolutionary, during the post-Catalonian revolutionary period.)

Don't mistake the fact that left communists are some of the few communists on Holla Forums to properly critique so-called market socialism for this being a trait unique to left communists. As shows: the Marxist critique of fellow socialists is not a Marxcom movement-specific phenomenon; it is in fact the entirety of the Marxist tradition to properly critique all that exists. Supported by, as Engels put it in his letters to Bebel in Leipzig, 1882:
>“Marx and [I have] fought harder all our lives against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else.”
This truly hammers home the point that critique of political economy is much more important against the left, which holds the prospect of desire for change, than the right, which is already unanymously a "power that be"; ergo, a field which ought to be opposed in practice, in effect a complete banality.

To expand on the critique of self-exploitation: for Marx, capitalism is not to be seen as first a hierarchical mode of production. Marx very importantly called the historical stage post-feudalism capitalism, specifically to indicate that it is a society dominated by production for market exchange. This is important, and reflects itself in the term capitalism (and thus not capitalistism). Capital being such a ductile category, requires no hierarchy to multiply as automated subject; all it needs is the private proprietary form of the firm, producing for exchange. Self-exploitation thus means: the literal appropriation of one's labor for exchange, "exploitation" thus simply meaning "to extract use (from)"; "to appropriate for the purpose (of)".

In his critique of what was in Marx's time still a fairly popular idea: Proudhon's mutualist "market anarchism", Marx writes (in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, the 1844 translations):
>Through estranged, alienated labour, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labour of a man alien to labour and standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labour creates the relation to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labour). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself…
>We also understand, therefore, that wages and private property are identical. Indeed, where the product, as the object of labour, pays for labour itself, there the wage is but a necessary consequence of labour's estrangement…
>Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.
This is a similar realization Luxemburg raises over 50 years later, in her 1900 "Reform or Revolution", also posted ITT: that the cooperative, as the name implies, simply constitutes a cooperative approach at capitalism; one simply abolishing the traditional bourgeois firm, but maintaining the value form, and production following capital's law of value, disciplined by impersonal market forces lauding from fierce inter-firm competition for exchange.

So obviously, a cooperative is then the preferable position for a working man to be in, and I would strongly suggest working in a cooperative than an Ltd. if there were the choice, but material analysis of capitalism as mode of production conclusively shows that it does nothing to change capitalism, more specifically to tackle little more than firm hierarchy, while not touching the law of value and the commodification of labor and its proceeds, which are the essential pillars of what capitalism produces: capital.

Hope this cleared things up for you and others ITT…