helm
capitalist forms of organization peacefully, assuming that laws don't
discriminate against co-op expansion.
(from the comments, i surmise that in Canada co-ops are a bigger part of the
economy, %-wise, than in the U.S.)
i can't remember all the responses now, but i think someone s
ither
away?), why is that statement absurd?
norm
-Original Message-
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:5871] RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
In order to know how genetics "l
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 roo
ghout
>history (wasn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" supposed to wither
>away?), why is that statement absurd?
>
>norm
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:39 AM
]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 7:48 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: RE: co-ops + human behavior
whoa, austin just one minute please!
i read your drift that you don't agree with my expert opinions.
first, who is "we", like in "We know it is.&
The discussion on co-ops has long deviated from Norm's original
questions which, I don't believe, have ever been addressed. The
question is why would one want to organize and support a co-op.
Now being a post-Autaustic economist, I go out and look at the
real world and ask, why
n in more detail why you object to these views?
norm
-Original Message-
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:06 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:5807] RE: co-ops + human behavior
We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
We don't have to assume social behavior is learned. We know it is.
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
ay well in Left
Revolutionary Peoria, but it's my preferred denouement.
norm
-Original Message-
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: co-ops + human behavior
norm said:
>co-
How does hierarchical organization have a genetic component? Why even assume
this?
Andrew Austin
Green Bay, WI
-Original Message-
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: co-ops + huma
norm wrote:
>if you accept the above statements as facts, then why do ideologues advocate
>LARGE economic and political changes when the results of these are unknown?
I believe that only the people themselves can institute large economic and
political changes. Though I may think that they are ne
norm said:
>co-ops may be limited by people's limited motivation for cooperation with
>each other. e.g, if we are 25% genetically programmed to cooperate with
>people (for survival purposes) and 75%% genetically programmed to compete
>with people (again, for survival purposes),
So how do you explain suicides?Do genetic programmes crash :)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Mikalac Norman S NSSC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:27 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:5669] co-ops + human behavior
> &g
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
gt;interesting you mention the Mondragon market because Chomsky is always
>singing praises to it and Orwell's "Homage to ?" - about the workers' co-op...
it's "Homage to Catalonia." BTW, I wouldn't say that the Barcelonan co-ops
had stabilized to d
s' co-op
>movements in Spain prior to being crushed by Franco. that is also on my
>list.
>
>with all these persuasive co-op comments from listers, though, i'm still
>missing an important ingredient on people's motivations for cooperative vs.
>competitive behavior that
on people's motivations for cooperative vs.
competitive behavior that underlies all discussions of social institutions,
including co-ops, i.e., the genetic ("nature") causes and environmental
("nurture") causes of cooperative and competitive behavior.
co-ops may be limit
Norm,
If you want to study co-ops as a system, complete with their own
credit union bank and education system, have a look at the history
and success of the Mondragon co-ops in Spain. With all their
limitations, this is probably the best example of what you are
looking for. I would also
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
The huge Berkeley co-op went belly-up. They tried to expand too fast --
acting corporate.
> There used to be a lot of co-ops in
Berkeley
> when I lived there, because it was a hot-bed of leftism. (It's like in much
> of Canada.)
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
Ca
anking," in which
banks and their main borrowers have long-term relationships.)
In order for co-ops to grow & succeed as a major form of economic
organization, there has to be some sort of social-democratic political
movement (which provides the political-sociological replacement for the
we made some of our units available to the
>local housing authority for public housing.
>
>--
>
>for reasons i cited in an earlier post, i don't see why co-ops can't stand
>on a level playing field and out-perform profit busin
dies 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.
>
>
housing authority for public housing.
--
for reasons i cited in an earlier post, i don't see why co-ops can't stand
on a level playing field and out-perform profit businesses and therefore i
don't see why they need special govt. considerati
, that
coops are less efficient, is demonstrably false. --jks
>
>thank you for your valuable addition to the co-op discussion. all kinds of
>cooperatives are welcome, including industrials.
>
>seems to me that co-ops are an ideal way for the socialists and their
>suffering proletar
justin: 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
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
thank you for your valuable addition to the co-op discussion. all kinds of
cooperatives are welcome, including industrials.
seems to me that co-ops are an ideal way for the socialists and their
suffering proletariat to conquer the world.
assumption: no legal impediments for co-ops of any type
do
votes.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5532] Re: co-ops
> A case hit the Supreme Court a couple years ago in which the banks tried
t
Ken Hanley wrote:
>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.
One of the things that must not be neglected is the very r
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
gt;
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
> 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
bus
<[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. THer
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 expe
>
>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
> 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
>
>
>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
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
At 01:55 PM 12/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>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,
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
A case hit the Supreme Court a couple years ago in which the banks tried to
curtail the credit unions.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
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.
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 "
>>> [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:
st 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 understan
cally
successful. Others on the list may remember specific historical references
in regard to this.
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5517] Re: co-ops
>>> [EMAIL PROTE
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?
to JD: can you corroborate banks lending at higher rates? that is
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/04/00 01:55PM >>>
thank you for your response that leads me to my next question:
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 i
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 becom
>thank you for your response that leads me to my next question:
>
>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?
>
>norm
>
At 01:55 PM 12/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>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,
thank you for your response that leads me to my next question:
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?
norm
-Original Message-
From: M
Jim, I came across another article that deals with the theory of
the worker owned firm, B. Horvat, "The Theory of the Worker-
Managed Firm RevisiteJ of Comparative Economics, I, 1986.
Paul
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim,
> I know that Horvat has written many articles oposing the
> Ward-Vanek model and I have them somewhere, but where is the
> question. One reference I do have is "The Illyrian Firm: An
> Alternative View: a Rejoinder" *Economic Analysis and Wo
Jim,
I know that Horvat has written many articles oposing the
Ward-Vanek model and I have them somewhere, but where is the
question. One reference I do have is "The Illyrian Firm: An
Alternative View: a Rejoinder" *Economic Analysis and Workers"
self Management*, 1986. I do think that anyone w
I'm very glad that Paul Phillips decided to return after his short break.
He writes >>I find it somewhat ironical that we, who rail against the
neoclassical model, accept a neoclassical model to judge the behaviour of
co-ops, socially owned firms etc. The Ward-Vanek model begins wi
Jim,
I find it somewhat ironical that we, who rail against the neoclassical
model, accept a neoclassical model to judge the behaviour of
co-ops, socially owned firms etc. The Ward-Vanek model begins with
the same assumptions as the standard neoclassical -- maximization,
methodological
Paul Phillips, writes that >> it is Horvat who rails against the Ward/Vanek
model as
empirically untrue -- in fact just the opposite.<<
Right. But is the Ward model empirically wrong because it is logically
flawed (because a worker co-op does not have an inherent tendency to be
exclusive, to avoi
ry" into a market dominated
by co-ops is a reasonably difficult proposition: to enter a market means
forming a co-op, which means having the money to invest. If the existing
co-ops aren't willing to help (which they won't be, following Ward et al.)
then the workers have to get
Why does a choice have to be made between private capitalist--or
even private cooperative--ownership on the one hand and state
ownership on the other? This is
to presuppose that property is one thing and must be vested
whole and entire in one kind of social actor or another. But
*social* o
Jim Devine writes:
But decentralized
democracy (worker co-ops, community co-ops, etc.) have been
central to alternatives to social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist
statism.
Comment: Social democratic governments surely are strongly in favor
of co-ops. Indeed, provinces such as Manitoba and
Louis Proyect:
While Mondragon seems benign enough as a place to work, it doesn't seem
to have anything to do with socialism. Given the current destructive
trajectory of capitalism with its attack on the environment, its attack
on wages and living conditions in the industrial nations, its cont
From: _Dollars and Sense_, Jul/Aug95
CO-OPS, ESOPS,
AND WORKER
PARTICIPATION
by Rebecca Bauen
In 1991 the 130 employees of Market Forge, an industrial
cooking equipment manufacturer in Everett, Massachu-
setts, were threatened with loss of their jobs. The Chicago-
based conglomerate that
64 matches
Mail list logo
