I apologize to my readers (what few there are) for the delay. I thought this post had loaded a while ago but it hadn't.
Someone once told me that they thought worker self-management could never succeed in either the restaurant or fast food industry. A little cheese shop in Berkeley, California is proving them wrong.
The Cheeseboard Collective originally opened in 1967 as a family-owned business of Elizabeth and Sahag Avedisian. A few years later the owners reorganized it into a collective with the hopes of living out their beliefs in social justice. In addition to being a cheese shop the Collective serves morning coffee and operate as a bakery. Later, in 1985 the Cheeseboard Pizza Collective was opened and operates independently of the original cheese shop.
The Cheeseboard Collective consists of a thirty members while the Pizzeria has twelve. The pay scale is the same for all of the workers and decisions are made in both using a direct democracy in which the members debate on such details as to whether or not to accept credit cards or to accept a new member. In neither the Cheeseboard nor the Pizzeria will you find either bosses or managers.
The workers of both the Collective and Pizzeria are all cross trained, which keep the employees engaged and allows them to rotate the various duties during the day. In addition, this gives the workers a flexibility that allows them to cover for each other and can make it easier to take time off for illness or vacation.
But one must ask about quality of the food. The Cheeseboard Collective was declared in 2006 by the USA Today to be one of the top ten pizzerias in the nation. Social justice and great food. What a wonderful combination.
To read more about the Cheeseboard Collective go to
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/08/FDGDR22FJ71.DTL
The web site for the Cheeseboard Collective is http://cheeseboardcollective.coop/index.html
In the next installment of this series I plan to go to the other side of the world and show how a small cooperative in the Middle East is giving hope of peace and self-reliance to a war torn people.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Worker-Owned Cooperatives: Part 2
In part 1 we learned about the famous Rochdale Cooperative and the Rochdale Principles. Now we need to jump to today and learn about the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA).
The ICA describes their “Co-operative Values” as: “Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.”
In addition to Co-operative Values the ICA provides a set of operating principles for cooperatives:
1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.
3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence
Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.
5th Principle: Education, Training and Information
Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
6th Principle: Co-operation among Co-operatives
Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.
7th Principle: Concern for Community
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
The ICA values and principles are universal standards by which nearly all modern cooperatives operate.
In part 3 of this series I’ll show these principles and values in action by covering one of the great American cooperatives.
The ICA describes their “Co-operative Values” as: “Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.”
In addition to Co-operative Values the ICA provides a set of operating principles for cooperatives:
1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.
3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence
Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.
5th Principle: Education, Training and Information
Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
6th Principle: Co-operation among Co-operatives
Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.
7th Principle: Concern for Community
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
The ICA values and principles are universal standards by which nearly all modern cooperatives operate.
In part 3 of this series I’ll show these principles and values in action by covering one of the great American cooperatives.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Worker-Owned Cooperatives: Part 1
Since the core of an economic democracy would be democratic enterprises in the form of worker-owned cooperatives it’s important to understand what a cooperative is. A good place to start is with the Rochdale Cooperative.
The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers was formed in 1844 on Toad Lane in Rochdale, England. Known as the Rochdale Cooperative it was highly successful, unlike its predecessor the Rochdale Friendly Co-operative Society, and is still in operation today. The members of that cooperative wrote down what would later be known as the “Rochdale Principles”:
In the next part of this series I’ll explore the International Co-operative Alliance and the ICA’s “Co-operative Principles”.
The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers was formed in 1844 on Toad Lane in Rochdale, England. Known as the Rochdale Cooperative it was highly successful, unlike its predecessor the Rochdale Friendly Co-operative Society, and is still in operation today. The members of that cooperative wrote down what would later be known as the “Rochdale Principles”:
- Voting is by members on a democratic (one-member, one-vote) basis.
- Membership is open
- Equity is provided by members.
- Equity ownership share of individual members is limited.
- Net income is distributed to members as patronage refunds on a cost basis.
- Dividends on equity capital are limited.
- Exchange of goods and services at market prices
- Duty to educate
- Cash trading only
- No unusual risk assumption
- Political and religious neutrality
- Equality in membership (no discrimination by gender)
In the next part of this series I’ll explore the International Co-operative Alliance and the ICA’s “Co-operative Principles”.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Shock
What does the CIA, Milton Friedman, Augusto Pinochet, Boris Yeltsin, and the George W Bush Administration all have in common? They are all major players in Naomi Klein’s terrifying new book, “Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.”
In her new book Klein begins with the experiments conducted by Ewan Cameron and the CIA in the late 1950’s through early 1960’s. During that time scores of individuals were subjected to Electroconvulsive therapy with the expectations that it would wipe their brains clean. Instead these experiments destroyed lives and caused untold suffering to the victims.
Klein then follows the trail of destruction from Cameron’s torture chambers to Chile, Russia, Poland, China, Iraq, and finally to New Orleans. Throughout the book Klein documents how the “Chicago boys” adopt Cameron’s theories to their own ends. Friedman and his ilk are shown to be opportunistic predators who have no need to create chaos but instead wait for events to happen (such as military coups, revolutions, wars, economic downturns, and environmental disasters) and then move in to take advantage of the shocked and frightened population to tear down the existing social institutions.
The goal of the Chicago Boys is to replace democratically run social institutions, especially Keynesian economic systems, with “Corporatism.” She explains that modern corporatism has evolved from Mussolini’s police state model based around government, business, and trade unions to a system based on, “a mutually supporting alliance between a police state and large corporations, joining forces to wage all-out war on the third power sector – the workers – thereby drastically increasing the alliance’s share of the national wealth.”
They say that knowledge is power. We should be grateful to Naomi Klein for providing us with this knowledge and therefore giving us another tool by which to fight back with.
In her new book Klein begins with the experiments conducted by Ewan Cameron and the CIA in the late 1950’s through early 1960’s. During that time scores of individuals were subjected to Electroconvulsive therapy with the expectations that it would wipe their brains clean. Instead these experiments destroyed lives and caused untold suffering to the victims.
Klein then follows the trail of destruction from Cameron’s torture chambers to Chile, Russia, Poland, China, Iraq, and finally to New Orleans. Throughout the book Klein documents how the “Chicago boys” adopt Cameron’s theories to their own ends. Friedman and his ilk are shown to be opportunistic predators who have no need to create chaos but instead wait for events to happen (such as military coups, revolutions, wars, economic downturns, and environmental disasters) and then move in to take advantage of the shocked and frightened population to tear down the existing social institutions.
The goal of the Chicago Boys is to replace democratically run social institutions, especially Keynesian economic systems, with “Corporatism.” She explains that modern corporatism has evolved from Mussolini’s police state model based around government, business, and trade unions to a system based on, “a mutually supporting alliance between a police state and large corporations, joining forces to wage all-out war on the third power sector – the workers – thereby drastically increasing the alliance’s share of the national wealth.”
They say that knowledge is power. We should be grateful to Naomi Klein for providing us with this knowledge and therefore giving us another tool by which to fight back with.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Band-Aid
So the politicians are finally admitting that there is a recession. It took them long enough to figure that one out. Unfortunately the suffering of the working people hasn’t been the cause of their concern. It was only when the value of their stock portfolios started going down then they realized there was a problem. It makes one wonder if the market hadn’t tanked whether they would ever have admitted there was a recession. Probably not.
To understand the recession we should remember that there are three essential components to capitalism: the central position of private investment (i.e. capital), a primarily two-tiered class system of Laborers and Capitalists, and a totalitarian dictatorship by the markets. This market dictatorship, which is detached from society and is propped up by the State, is the means by which wealth is redistributed from the laborers to the capitalists.
The recent problems of the bursting housing bubble and rising gas prices helped caused the current recession because they drained money from the market, which therefore meant that there was less redistribution of wealth from the workers to the capitalists. Less redistribution meant less accumulation of wealth and therefore the less likely that the capitalists were going to reinvest. This lack of investment results in a vicious cycle of more layoffs, which in turn results in reduced consumer spending and a further reduction in the redistribution of wealth.
In an attempt to kick start this redistribution of wealth the politicians have decided upon a “stimulus package” that will consist largely of rebates. Critics on both the Left and Right have pointed out the numerous problems with this solution. Many of the recipients won’t use the rebates to make new purchases but to pay off their debts from their previous. Those that do spend it will buy many products that are foreign made so that much of this money will just leave the country rather than result in new domestic jobs. Even if the rebate helps it doesn’t go to the root of the problem, which is an economy based on consumption rather than production.
Contrast this with an economic democracy. In an economic democracy the goal would not be the redistribution of wealth from one class to another but instead would be the constant creation and maintenance of high quality jobs for everyone. Therefore, if signs of a recession began to appear then action would be taken to head it off by the social investment system so as to create new cooperative enterprises and to boost entrepreneurial activity.
This difference shows the superiority of economic democracy over capitalism. In capitalism a recession isn’t a problem until it begins to hurt the capitalists. In an economic democracy the welfare of everyone is a concern so a recession is never allowed to happen. Recovery in capitalism is based on a hope and a prayer that token efforts like tax rebates will spur consumers to spend the economy into recovery. While recovery in an economic democracy goes to the source of the problem and insures that everyone has high-paying employment opportunities.
To understand the recession we should remember that there are three essential components to capitalism: the central position of private investment (i.e. capital), a primarily two-tiered class system of Laborers and Capitalists, and a totalitarian dictatorship by the markets. This market dictatorship, which is detached from society and is propped up by the State, is the means by which wealth is redistributed from the laborers to the capitalists.
The recent problems of the bursting housing bubble and rising gas prices helped caused the current recession because they drained money from the market, which therefore meant that there was less redistribution of wealth from the workers to the capitalists. Less redistribution meant less accumulation of wealth and therefore the less likely that the capitalists were going to reinvest. This lack of investment results in a vicious cycle of more layoffs, which in turn results in reduced consumer spending and a further reduction in the redistribution of wealth.
In an attempt to kick start this redistribution of wealth the politicians have decided upon a “stimulus package” that will consist largely of rebates. Critics on both the Left and Right have pointed out the numerous problems with this solution. Many of the recipients won’t use the rebates to make new purchases but to pay off their debts from their previous. Those that do spend it will buy many products that are foreign made so that much of this money will just leave the country rather than result in new domestic jobs. Even if the rebate helps it doesn’t go to the root of the problem, which is an economy based on consumption rather than production.
Contrast this with an economic democracy. In an economic democracy the goal would not be the redistribution of wealth from one class to another but instead would be the constant creation and maintenance of high quality jobs for everyone. Therefore, if signs of a recession began to appear then action would be taken to head it off by the social investment system so as to create new cooperative enterprises and to boost entrepreneurial activity.
This difference shows the superiority of economic democracy over capitalism. In capitalism a recession isn’t a problem until it begins to hurt the capitalists. In an economic democracy the welfare of everyone is a concern so a recession is never allowed to happen. Recovery in capitalism is based on a hope and a prayer that token efforts like tax rebates will spur consumers to spend the economy into recovery. While recovery in an economic democracy goes to the source of the problem and insures that everyone has high-paying employment opportunities.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Time Has Come
The day was January 11th, 1944. The Battle of Monte Cassino was waging on the Italian front in Europe while the 1st Marine Division had successfully taken Aogiri Ridge on a small island in New Guinea. Across the world President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave what was to be his last State of the Union address. As he neared the end of the speech, he presented a vision for America. “It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known.” FDR pointed out that while the original Bill of Rights served us well it was insufficient for the reality of our industrial economy. He then stated that it was time for a “second Bill of Rights.”
This Economic Bill of Rights, as it would become known, included:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education
The time has now come when, through the establishment of an Economic Democracy, we can finally create the America that President Roosevelt dreamt of.
Monday, January 21, 2008
TINA – Part 4
Q&A
Following are concerns and questions that have been raised by readers in previous postings about public investment as alternatives to capital.
Democratic Accountability
It’s been asked whether public investment system would be democratically accountable. The CDC’s and the CDFI’s would be accountable to the local and community level along with the state in some cases. The national social investment system would be established by democratic mandate through Congressional action. I would expect that the social investment banks would operate independently much like the Federal Reserve. Currently Congressional oversight is to, “clearly establish a viable objective for the Federal Reserve and to ensure the Central Bank is fully accountable for achieving this goal.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm Democratic accountability of the social investment system would be similar.
Should Social Investment be Profitable?
Another question that was asked was whether the public investment system would be required to make the best possible use of the tax money. Without a doubt the social investment system would be expected to meet the requirements of its mandate, which would be to insure universal employment through the ongoing creation of profitable cooperative and family-owned enterprises.
At one point that questioner used the P-Word: profitable and whether it would need to “show evidence of actual growth.” In answer to profitability the social investment system would not operate to make a profit in the same fashion as business. Instead, the success of the public investment system would be in whether it’s meeting its mandate. If it wasn’t then the leadership would be replaced with those who would insure that the mandate was met.
Risk of Bureaucratic Control
It was also asked whether public investment would leave control in the hands of the politicians. The concern being that the system might cause the only way to get investment would be through backdoor politics. This concern is another reason why the social investment banks would need to operate independently plus the reason for the existence on the CDC’s and CDFI’s.
Availability of Investment
Another questioner pointed out that capitalism is a good way to make money available to companies. I would point out that actually most of the money in the system moves through the Secondary Market, which means it moves between the shareholders without actually reaching the companies. It’s the Primary Market, which involves direct investments with the businesses, that provides money to businesses. Take venture capital, for example, which is important for the creation of new enterprises. In 2007, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, there was $29.4 billion invested into business ventures by venture capitalists. The social investment system along with the CDC/CDFI would be more than sufficient.
Following are concerns and questions that have been raised by readers in previous postings about public investment as alternatives to capital.
Democratic Accountability
It’s been asked whether public investment system would be democratically accountable. The CDC’s and the CDFI’s would be accountable to the local and community level along with the state in some cases. The national social investment system would be established by democratic mandate through Congressional action. I would expect that the social investment banks would operate independently much like the Federal Reserve. Currently Congressional oversight is to, “clearly establish a viable objective for the Federal Reserve and to ensure the Central Bank is fully accountable for achieving this goal.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/fed-impt.htm Democratic accountability of the social investment system would be similar.
Should Social Investment be Profitable?
Another question that was asked was whether the public investment system would be required to make the best possible use of the tax money. Without a doubt the social investment system would be expected to meet the requirements of its mandate, which would be to insure universal employment through the ongoing creation of profitable cooperative and family-owned enterprises.
At one point that questioner used the P-Word: profitable and whether it would need to “show evidence of actual growth.” In answer to profitability the social investment system would not operate to make a profit in the same fashion as business. Instead, the success of the public investment system would be in whether it’s meeting its mandate. If it wasn’t then the leadership would be replaced with those who would insure that the mandate was met.
Risk of Bureaucratic Control
It was also asked whether public investment would leave control in the hands of the politicians. The concern being that the system might cause the only way to get investment would be through backdoor politics. This concern is another reason why the social investment banks would need to operate independently plus the reason for the existence on the CDC’s and CDFI’s.
Availability of Investment
Another questioner pointed out that capitalism is a good way to make money available to companies. I would point out that actually most of the money in the system moves through the Secondary Market, which means it moves between the shareholders without actually reaching the companies. It’s the Primary Market, which involves direct investments with the businesses, that provides money to businesses. Take venture capital, for example, which is important for the creation of new enterprises. In 2007, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, there was $29.4 billion invested into business ventures by venture capitalists. The social investment system along with the CDC/CDFI would be more than sufficient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)