Re: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
norm wrote: >i say that humans, like ALL animals, have a genetic endowment that limits >how we behave. I think it's silly to reject -- as some leftists do -- the fact that there's a genetic determinant to the "nature of human nature." The genetic basis of human nature, however, has a lot of room to move (unlike, say, for cats, whose behavior seems to be mostly -- though not totally -- programmed by their genes). That is genetics determine human _potential_. The point for socialists should be to liberate and to _realize_ that potential, not to turn people into angels. This should be possible given the way that humanity has switched to using culture (including technology) as the main way of surviving and evolving and the many ways in which people's characters have varied over time and between cultures. BTW, Albert & Hahnel's QUIET REVOLUTION IN WELFARE ECONOMICS, like all of their writings that I've read, take the fact that genetics plays a role very explicitly. These are folks whose politics veers toward anarchism or utopian socialism. In this, they are like Noam Chomsky, a more explicit anarchist (he's a self-described "libertarian socialist," isn't he?), who sees a genetic basis for the abstract grammar that he sees as the basis for concrete languages that people have. > further, that social engineers need proceed with caution. My flavor of socialism has always opposed social engineering -- as a version of "socialism from above," imposed by what the "Internationale" terms "condescending saviors." Instead, the emphasis is on working-class collective self-liberation (with parallel principles applying to other oppressed groups). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: co-ops
What I recall was a bill in Congress . CB >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 01:00PM >>> don't understand why this is a Constitutional crisis worthy of the High-9. something in the Constitution that prevents co-ops? maybe i need a legal lesson in "legal forms of business enterprise". norm -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5537] Re: Re: co-ops At 01:20 PM 12/4/00 -0800, you wrote: >A case hit the Supreme Court a couple years ago in which the banks tried to >curtail the credit unions. didn't they succeed? this is different though, since they were trying to squish their competitors rather than objecting to an organizational form of the potential borrowers. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: co-ops
At 02:06 PM 12/5/00 -0800, you wrote: >The huge Berkeley co-op went belly-up. They tried to expand too fast -- >acting corporate. right. I was there for much of it (before the fall). They bought out a small chain of grocery stores and instantly grew, which led to the Co-Op's demise. There were also co-op dorms, though. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: co-ops
don't understand why this is a Constitutional crisis worthy of the High-9. something in the Constitution that prevents co-ops? maybe i need a legal lesson in "legal forms of business enterprise". norm -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5537] Re: Re: co-ops At 01:20 PM 12/4/00 -0800, you wrote: >A case hit the Supreme Court a couple years ago in which the banks tried to >curtail the credit unions. didn't they succeed? this is different though, since they were trying to squish their competitors rather than objecting to an organizational form of the potential borrowers. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: co-ops
Well, this list strikes me as rather insular. Louis talks about Co-ops in the same breath with utopian socialism. On the prairies co-ops, credit unions, etc. are all around us. They are not failing. Part of the reason for the plethora of co-ops is that there have been social democratic and/or populist provincial governments committed to them. The party that ruled Saskatchewan for many years and brought in the first North American universal health care system was called the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation..The Regina Manifesto, the party platform for some time, called for the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by a Co-operative Commonwealth. I posted the Manifesto to Pen-L some time ago,. We still have a minister responsible for co-operatives in the Manitoba provincial government. Things have changed for the worse but it was not long ago that co-operative housing was funded by both provincial and federal government. While there were some ridiculous restrictions a group of which I was president were able to get financing at below market rates. In exchange we made some of our units available to the local housing authority for public housing. We had two apartment bldgs and a substantial number of double units plus one special unit for handicapped peoples. The local Conservative MP helped us rather than hindered us . He had a son who was handicapped. Even the local Conservative dominated council did not give us a bad time since construction was almost non=existent and the city had landbanked land they were eager to have developed. So it all depends upon the specific context whether co-ops work. At present in rural Manitoba, banks are losing the battle with Credit Unions. Many banks are just pulling out of smaller towns because there is no profit to be made for them. Customers are then snapped up by local credit unions. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:02 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5525] RE: Re: co-ops > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/00 03:30PM >>> > to CB: can you make a substantiated case for capitalists putting co-ops out > of business? of course one would be for banks to lend at higher interest > rates as JD says. what other destructive mechanisms do they have? > > (( > > CB: Credit unions are coops. Recently there was an effort by big banks to get a federal law passed that would restrict credit unions. > > My parents live in housing structured as a coop. That is rare. But that is only indirect evidence of how big biz may limit the proliferation of the form. >
RE: Re: RE: Re: co-ops
I don't doubt it. I was speaking from a U.S. vantage point, where a coop in our ocean of business firms and hierarchical non-profits is more of a curiosity than a political statement. mbs > Coops are not so dangerous that a lender > would forego their business.\ > > mbs > Max, You should hear/see the venom hurled by private business whenever the provincial government threatens to extend the same small business subsidies to co-ops as it does to private businesses. Quite nasty. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: RE: Re: co-ops
> Coops are not so dangerous that a lender > would forego their business.\ > > mbs > Max, You should hear/see the venom hurled by private business whenever the provincial government threatens to extend the same small business subsidies to co-ops as it does to private businesses. Quite nasty. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: Re: co-ops
Like Ken, I belong to two credit unions and only one co-op (a gasoline retail co-op that returns 5c a litre (approx 20 cents a US gallon) to the membership. I also partially shop at an (aboriginal) retail grocery, workers co-op and patronize, when I can, a worker co-op courier service. By the way, the Credit Unions mean you can get instant cash almost anywhere in the world, at market exchange rates, through cash machines. Wonerful, Wonerful. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:[PEN-L:5554] Re: Re: co-ops Date sent: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:05:29 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I missed the earlier part of this discussion. You must be talkiing of some > type of production co-op. THere are co-operative financial institutions: > credit unions, or caisse populaires. There are retail co-ops, agricultural > marketing co-ops, dairy co-ops, housing co-oops and on and on. Go to any > small town near where I am and the main financial institution will not be a > bank but a credit union. The main or only grocery store in town will be a > co-op. I belong to four retail co-ops and two credit unions. Our local > credit union amalgamated with two others. THe growth increases our > advantages rather than losing them. We now have 24 hour no fee access to an > ATM rather than paying 50 cents for each transaction formerly. It may be > that some very large urban credit unions lose a lot of advantages of smaller > credit unions I couldn't say. But if they do why would they continue > growing? > Cheers. Ken Hanly > - Original Message -
Re: Re: RE: Re: co-ops
Yea Louis, But we don't all agree with Engels on this point (and in fact, many of us may actively disagree?). Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 15:48:03 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:[PEN-L:5523] Re: RE: Re: co-ops Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Martin Brown wrote: > >I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but there are several case > >studies of successful utopian-socialists experiments in California that were > >actively suppressed, using legal and extra-legal means, by what can only be > >described as agents of Capitalist interest, when they became economically > >successful. Others on the list may remember specific historical references > >in regard to this. > > That's the key word: "utopian-socialist". (Norm, put Engels' "Socialism, > Utopian and Scientific" on your list to understand the problem with co-ops. > For that matter, you don't have to spend a penny on it. It is online at > www.marxists.org.) > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org >
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: co-ops
> >Didn't Borders Books get it's start in Ann Arbor? > >Ian > When I was in grad school, it was just the local bookstore. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
RE: Re: RE: Re: co-ops
> A purely acedotal story. There was a really fine coop bookstore > in Ann Arbor > when I was in grad school in the 80s. It had existed for 15+ > years and had > never made a late payment. TRhen one day, the banks pulled its > credit and it > could not but books. The building was later leased by a large commercial > bookstore. which failed in the local competition; it's now a sort of mall > with cheap furniture, etc., I believe. The suspicion was > widespread, though > unprovable, that the banks could not stand a successful cops taht > was, among > other things, represented by the IWW. > > --jks ** Didn't Borders Books get it's start in Ann Arbor? Ian
Re: RE: Re: co-ops
> > >You forgot that worker-owners like surplus value. >As to (1) and (2), I don't see why either should >follow. Coops are not so dangerous that a lender >would forego their business.\ > Indeed, if the usual studies are correct, co-ops are as efficient or more so than capitalist enterprise, and no less productive or profitable. So if lenders make decisions solely on those basis, they should not discriminate against co-ops. That does not mean they do make such decisions. I have heard, indeed read, but without support, that lenders are suspicious of coops not because they threaten capitalism, but because they (lenders) are mystified by their management structures and unwilling to lend where they don't understand. A purely acedotal story. There was a really fine coop bookstore in Ann Arbor when I was in grad school in the 80s. It had existed for 15+ years and had never made a late payment. TRhen one day, the banks pulled its credit and it could not but books. The building was later leased by a large commercial bookstore. which failed in the local competition; it's now a sort of mall with cheap furniture, etc., I believe. The suspicion was widespread, though unprovable, that the banks could not stand a successful cops taht was, among other things, represented by the IWW. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: co-ops
Thanks. If you have specific cites, I'd appreciate 'em. --jks > >Gary Dymski has done a lot on this. . . . and >others (at one point or another) associated with UMass-Amherst Economics >have pointed to the refusal of banks to provide that financing. _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: co-ops
At 08:15 PM 12/4/00 +, you wrote: >Sources, Jim? Especially on the bank stuff. I know the growth stuff, >though if you have something I'd like to read it. --jks > >>>if co-ops can successfully give people what they want at a price that >>>excludes "surplus value", then why haven't they become a major factor in >>>republican-capitalist societies? >> >>there are at least two reasons: >> >>(1) if they grow, they lose most or all of their advantages; >> >>(2) banks won't lend to them, except at higher interest rates. Gary Dymski has done a lot on this. It's a general consensus of the "workers' control" literature (that I've seen) that workers' co-operatives' major problem is in financing, especially for expansion, while Gary and others (at one point or another) associated with UMass-Amherst Economics have pointed to the refusal of banks to provide that financing. Now this can't be extended without change to consumers' cooperatives, but there are a lot of similarities between the two types of organizations. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: co-ops
Martin Brown wrote: >I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but there are several case >studies of successful utopian-socialists experiments in California that were >actively suppressed, using legal and extra-legal means, by what can only be >described as agents of Capitalist interest, when they became economically >successful. Others on the list may remember specific historical references >in regard to this. That's the key word: "utopian-socialist". (Norm, put Engels' "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific" on your list to understand the problem with co-ops. For that matter, you don't have to spend a penny on it. It is online at www.marxists.org.) Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
