This question inquires about private ownership vs. state ownership. However, there is a 3rd category that may or may not be considered as private ownership: Worker cooperatives.

In the model of private or public ownership, where would worker cooperatives fit in? Is this ownership model closer to socialism, closer to capitalism, or is it its own category entirely? What political movements promote this form of ownership?

Bonus question that is probably off-topic on this site: Do worker cooperatives make up a significant (>5%) share of the economy anywhere in the world?

  • It makes up 100% of the Worker-Cooperative Demographic. How many points to do I get? – SoylentGray Dec 12 '12 at 0:13
  • I'll probably have to wait for the Economics site for the bonus question. – gerrit Dec 12 '12 at 10:55
  • Are we expecting a definite answer to this? – DJClayworth Dec 20 '12 at 17:34
  • 1
    I think your descibing a different economic system called distributionism.arent their different types of coops. For example i heard their was a consumers coop or retail coop – user4295 Aug 2 '14 at 5:56
  • That bonus question should be split off into a separate question. – naught101 Mar 2 '15 at 0:45

One could argue that cooperatives are not private ownership, but that would be futile. Such an argument would mean that owning stock could also not be private ownership.

Worker cooperatives are in effect private ownership as they belong to the members of the cooperative. They are closer to capitalism than to socialism because in a pure socialist world everything would be needed to be controlled by the government. A pure socialist world could not allow for cooperatives to exist as they are a step in the direction of capitalism.

The model is thus closer to capitalism as there are no rules that prohibit cooperatives from making revenue and that revenue increases the capital stock which in turn belongs to the members of the cooperative (or the stock holders). A cooperative is thus only a simpler form of a stock company.

Still mostly socialist parties promote this form of ownership as they see it as a first step of giving up parts of control over a company from a simple board to a wider population of members. Yet as has been shown above this is simply a question about how a company or a cooperative is governed and not about whom it belongs to.

Regarding the bonus question, I can't tell and a quick google search did not turn anything up either.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Interesting bit of history - when the socialist economy of the USSR started crumbling in the 80's, the first private enterprises allowed were so called "cooperatives" - which in fact were limited private companies. They paved the way to the full private companies. But for a while, most private enterprises were "cooperatives", at least formally. – StasM Dec 10 '12 at 10:00
  • 4
    I think by "pure socialist world" you mean state-socialism. There are plenty of variants of socialism where this isn't true - market socialism, for instance, and pretty much any libertarian socialist system. – naught101 Mar 2 '15 at 0:51

Worker cooperatives are independent of socialist/capitalist classification.

What matters to being socialist/capitalist is whether the workers in the cooperative:

  1. Can retain the profit from selling whatever they produce (no matter how it's divided internally)

  2. Can decide what and how to produce

  3. Can elect (assuming they have 100% internal agreement) to sell the cooperative to ANOTHER owner, who will then be deciding how the place is run and getting the profits.

    • If the answers to all 3 are "yes", it's typical capitalism.

    • If the answers to all 3 are "no", it's typical hardline socialism.

    • Please note that in may nominally "socialist" countries, small cooperatives would have freedom to do one of the 3 (usually #1 only, or #1 and #2, but NOT #3).

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Socialism can be defined as "socially owned means of production", or is in any case characterised as that the workers own the means of production, as opposed to capitalist shareholders. I agree with your division regarding #3, but I don't agree regarding #2. If #1 and #2 are "yes" and #3 is "no", where would you place it? – gerrit Dec 10 '12 at 16:08
  • @gerrit - market oriented socialism. China would be a possible example (post-Deng-Xiaoping). Or post-Perestroyka USSR. Or (as far as I know) some eastern European socialist countries. – user4012 Dec 10 '12 at 17:13
  • really? Are those economies heavy on cooperatives? – gerrit Dec 10 '12 at 17:15
  • @gerrit - Post-perestroyka USSR was, for sure. China and Eastern Europe, I'm less sure. – user4012 Dec 10 '12 at 17:28

I'm marketing the idea of the worker cooperative under the label "Free Market Socialism," simply because the word socialism was NEVER intended to be all about government control. The fact is that a group of workers deciding for themselves, how to run the business and how to divvy up the profits - that is what, according to Marxist class analysis, would be considered a "libertarian socialist mode of production."

| improve this answer | |

Appealing to the dictionary we find: "Market socialism is a type of economic system where the means of production are either publicly owned or socially owned as cooperatives and operated in a market economy."

Cooperatives are neither capitalist nor state socialist. Rather, a form of grassroots market socialism.

| improve this answer | |

This question inquires about private ownership vs. state ownership. However, there is a 3rd category that may or may not be considered as private ownership: Worker cooperatives.

And a fourth, and a fifth, and so on. Who owns property is not a distinguishing feature. States run market capital all the time. Private companies run sheltered workshops. Workers coops maximise value and circulate it in the expanded form. Public, private or cooperative ownership is not a predictive indicator of capitalism, socialism, firm structure, market conduct or any other differentiator.

In the model of private or public ownership, where would worker cooperatives fit in?

They're good evidence the model is faulty.

Is this ownership model closer to socialism, closer to capitalism, or is it its own category entirely?

Neither. Again it is a faulty model. Mondragon produces capital in an expanded form. The Rochdale Coops did too, the divvy was a distribution of capital. What is important about workers coops is the increase in power for workers within capitalism, the possibility of different firm structures by a potential to offer more diverse management values than maximisation of shareholder profit, and the presence of non-capital expanding economic conducts. But these can happen in other ways, local entrepreneurs often devote personal income to local interests, because of the latent threat of local consumers and workers against them.

What political movements promote this form of ownership?

Social democracy does in some areas. Anarchism, as in class struggle anarchism, does also. Revolutionary social democracy, your classic Leninisms tend to avoid the issue. As do labourisms (Australian Labor Party, Labour in the UK, etc).

For the bonus, 22% of Swedish housing stock is provided cooperatively. http://www.housinginternational.coop/co-ops/sweden

| improve this answer | |
  • The Labor party in the UK has renewed its support for worker co-ops. ibtimes.co.uk/… – rapt Aug 10 '17 at 20:44

The question by and large doesn't make sense as you are asking if the particular structure of what is in essence a company fits into a description of a type of governmental system.

For sake of argument if we treat a company as if it were a government then a workers cooperative would most closely resemble Communism. All workers have equal ownership and stakes in the venture. Many successful cooperatives are evidence that a communist system works well in small groups, however as the number of people increase they become harder to manage and degenerate into a typical communist regime.

| improve this answer | |
  • Does it? The largest cooperative in the world, Mondragon, has 84000 members. Has this one degenerated into a typical communist regime, or is it still a small group? – gerrit Dec 10 '12 at 9:00
  • 2
    @gerrit I would say that is still a small group in terms of a country. I am just pointing out that when we start talking in millions then it is easier for a group of people to grab more power than would normally be afforded. – user117 Dec 10 '12 at 11:54
  • 1
    but then the question is if, do we actually need any units consisting of more than 100000 members? That's as large as a (very) small country... – gerrit Dec 10 '12 at 12:26
  • @gerrit Perhaps not but it is a good question! Large countries command more economic and military power so the argument can be made they are safer from economic downturns and foreign invasion, but at the very least the national security aspect can be solved with strong alliances. – user117 Dec 10 '12 at 12:45

They are non capitalist organization because of how the decisions are made in the firm. In a capitalist firm you have a owners, board of directors, and key employees aka top management make all the decisions of the firm and the workers have no say in what goes on. Capitalist firms appropriate the surplus value of workers.

In Worker Cooperatives the worker decides on what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to do with the profits. The worker is not exploited because they decide collectively where their surplus labor goes opposed to have a boss who decides where it goes.

Worker Cooperatives are a democracy as in one member one vote while regular capitalist firms are a totalitarian environment who those who have more invested financially in the firm are the people who call the shots.

Worker Cooperatives in the industrial era were started by socialist who were following of Robert Owen. Robert Owen was a pre Marxian socialist.

The Mondragon corporation in the Basque region of Spain were started by a priest named Arizmendierreta who convinced everyone that if they wait for capitalists to come into the area to create jobs they would die of old age so they went about creating worker cooperatives. They have a distinct anti capitalist attitude when they compare them selves to other kinds of businesses.

Many of the hardcore leftists, communists, of Italy were the ones creating laws that would help worker cooperatives grow and flourish.

So if you don't agree that they socialist... one thing is for sure... they are not capitalist. They are not privately owned but collectively owned by a private group of people.
They are fundamentally different other than they both can exist in a market system where goods and services are given to the higher bidder.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Sorry, what you describe in the first paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Yes, most corporations in capitalism gravitate to that structure. No, it doesn't mean that any other structure is NOT capitalist. Very small family businesses/early startups/partnerships work pretty much the way a worker cooperative would, with flat egalitarian structure; and no "workers" to appropriate the surplas value of. That does not make them "not capitalist". – user4012 Apr 11 '14 at 3:44
  • technically it does, they are sole proprietorships, their is nothing inherently capitalistic. The market existed before capitalism, and has nothing to do with the change from Feudalism. Capitalism is about private ownership over the means of production, a family in question would be personal ownership over the means of production. Better stated their is nothing 'not socialist' about sole-proprietors either. However it's moot, as they cannot compete in the market very long in such a form. – J. M. Becker Sep 8 '16 at 19:52

I believe the Mondragon network of Basque Spain employs just shy of 100,000 workers. Not sure if that's a full 5% of the Basque labor force, but Mondragon is a big regional economic player either way.

And in the cooperative chain's 60-year history, Basque Spain has gone from one of the poorest Spanish provinces, to one of the country's richest. I don't think that's a lucky coincidence.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .