The point of all this, is to argue that the co-op/CU movement is, in
Polanyi's terms, economy embedded in society rather than
economy dictating to society. That is its raison d'ete, the reason
for its persistance and its (limited) success in competition with the
aggressive forces of capitalis
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.&
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
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 + human behavior
n
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
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
> >
> co-ops may be l
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 w
At 10:27 AM 12/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
>thanks for the reference. i'll put the Encyclopedia of PE on my list that
>seems to grow faster than my purchases. no wonder my psychiatrist daughter
>calls me a "bookaholic". (so how can i refute a Board-certified shrink?)
>
>interesting you mention the Mo
s assumption is that leftist ventures to make classless,
>egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies are hopeless dreams.
>
>norm
>
>--------
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, Decem
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 refe
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
California State Unive
Norm, in addition to the legal impediments that don't exist, it's important
to realize that a company doesn't win in a capitalist market by being
efficient. A company has to have advertising, distribution networks, a
large and aggressive legal staff, friends at the bank, R&D investment,
politi
Norm, the paying field is not level. We have a huge structure of corporate
law and a network of interlocking financial and other institutions based on
corporate (and private individual) ownership as a fundamental business of
enterprise organization. Form of business organization do not operate
You begin to see what I mean about collective action problems? Also, the CUs
have to be big enough. ALso, they have to look out for the good of their
depositors, which means they can't especially favor coops if a coop is not
competitive . . . . --jks
>justin: Indeed, if the usual studies are
o-op. Q.E.D.
>
>however, since co-ops have not conquered the world and since i haven't
>become rich and famous for my brilliant idea, then there must be something
>wrong with it.
>
>what is that?
>
>norm
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ke
]]
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,
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 real value of such
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
>
>
> >>>
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 he
> 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 nast
<[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
than capitalist enterprise, a
owing?
Cheers. Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 1:33 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:5506] Re: co-ops
> At 01:55 PM 12/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >if co-ops can successfully give people what
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, they lose most or all of thei
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 "surplus value", then why haven't they become
>>> [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 c
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 th
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
ideologically motivated or a reflection of co-op inability to repay loans?
thanks for your responses.
norm
-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 PROTECT
>>> [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 in
republican-capitalist societies?
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
>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
>
>
I have a rough draft paper on this. For
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, they lose most or all of thei
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
