Forum on the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain (Sun. July 20, 11am, Palo Alto)

When it comes to government, libertarians are often and rightly skeptical of if not outright hostile toward central planning, top-down systems of control, and so on. But in the voluntary sector, libertarians, like many if not most other people, have tended to take such hierarchical models for granted and assume this is just the natural way of things -- that any worker-owned or democratically-run business that tries to operate along more egalitarian lines is likely to suffer the fate of the 20th Century Motor Company in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged".

  Clearly, communal-type ventures face pitfalls and many have failed. But is such failure inevitable? Is it natural or necessary to have an administrative or managerial class set above other workers to tell them how to do their jobs? Do members of this class tend to be far better compensated than other workers because their skills truly command so much more value in a free market, or do current compensation levels merely reflect the fact that their class controls management and administration and thus they are generally the ones setting the rules for compensation? Might there be a viable free market approach that would be more empowering to individuals and thus more conducive to bolstering self-government and bottom-up control in society, while still adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle?

  A forum happening next weekend in Palo Alto on an interesting economic experiment that's been happening in Spain (Wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_cooperatives) could help shed some light on these questions, or at least provide food for thought for free-thinking libertarians interested in topics like mutualism, individual empowerment, agorism, and so on.

  I'm interested in attending myself if anyone can offer a ride from SF (can chip in for gas).

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

This does sound interesting. Two issues come to my mind

1. This Mondragon Coop movement is based in the Basque region of northern Spain. The Basques are an ethnic minority speaking a language that has no known relatives any else in the world. I wonder if there might be an ethnic dimension to this "egalitarianism". That is, some of those at the top could choose to work at a Basque co-op rather than an Spanish speaking company where they could make more money in order to be in a Basque environment. Socialism works better in Europe partly because most European countries a more ethnically uniform than the US and so people feel more solidarity.

2. If worker co-ops and egalitarian structures are superior to other arrangements, one wonders why there are not more of them. Claiming that egalitarianism is superior to hierarchianism is rather like claiming that dodos are superior to pigeons. If so, then why are there so few dodos around and so many pigeons? Curiously those who think egalitarianism is better also seem to think government must promote it or even mandate it, which seems self-contradictory to me.

Les

When it comes to government, libertarians are often and rightly skeptical of if not outright hostile toward central planning, top-down systems of control, and so on. But in the voluntary sector, libertarians, like many if not most other people, have tended to take such hierarchical models for granted and assume this is just the natural way of things -- that any worker-owned or democratically-run business that tries to operate along more egalitarian lines is likely to suffer the fate of the 20th Century Motor Company in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged".

Clearly, communal-type ventures face pitfalls and many have failed. But is such failure inevitable? Is it natural or necessary to have an administrative or managerial class set above other workers to tell them how to do their jobs? Do members of this class tend to be far better compensated than other workers because their skills truly command so much more value in a free market, or do current compensation levels merely reflect the fact that their class controls management and administration and thus they are generally the ones setting the rules for compensation? Might there be a viable free market approach that would be more empowering to individuals and thus more conducive to bolstering self-government and bottom-up control in society, while still adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle?

A forum happening next weekend in Palo Alto on an interesting economic experiment that's been happening in Spain (Wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_cooperatives) could help shed some light on these questions, or at least provide food for thought for free-thinking libertarians interested in topics like mutualism, individual empowerment, agorism, and so on.

I'm interested in attending myself if anyone can offer a ride from SF (can chip in for gas).

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

This is indeed interesting. I was thinking on similar lines as Les's point #1: The Basque community is very tight, homogeneous, and hard working; therefore, if Mondragon can keep the non-producers out, of course their vision, no matter what that vision is, will work. However, when I Googled the company, I see that we are not talking about some gated enclave in some alpine meadow, but a 80,000-employee holding company with subsidiaries in several countries. So, the way I see it, what is the tipping point in growth and diversity of personnel before the model collapses.

Marcy

Les,

  Does socialism -- by which I assume you mean *state* socialism, not the voluntary kind practiced in families, communes, and other non-government endeavors -- really "work better" in Europe than it does in the U.S.? My impression is that it does not work anywhere, if by "work" we mean either "fulfill the goals of most of its supporters" or " produce a better and more just society". To the extent state socialism is *more popular* in Europe, I imagine there are many and complex historical and sociological reasons for that. For if it were mainly a matter of ethnic homogeneity, then we should expect to find this political philosophy even more popular in highly homogenous places like Japan.

  In this context, as in many others, I don't think we can correlate relative scarcity with lack of merit. If there are many more apples than blueberries in the world, does that mean apples are "better" than blueberries? Is human superiority to other species disproved or called into question by the fact that there are many more insects, or pine trees, than there are human beings?

  "Those who think egalitarianism is better also seem to think government must promote it or even mandate it" -- I believe this tells us precisely nothing about the merits of egalitarianism. Consider that those who think streets without graffiti are better than streets with graffiti also tend to think that government must promote or even mandate their preference. Ditto for those who think public parks are better when homeless people are not allowed to camp in them.

  Probably you are right however that Mondragon having happened in the Basque region of Spain is not an accident. Besides the presence of the Basques themselves, I suspect the legacy of the Spanish Civil War may also be a factor. Spain, after all, was where self-identified anarchists came closest, during the last century, to taking power, and the Basques were mainly allied with the losing republican/anarchist side of the struggle, which was more supportive of their autonomy.

  Do these circumstances mean that something like the Mondragon Cooperatives could not work in other places, such as the United States? That would seem to be drawing a sweeping conclusion based on scant evidence. Presumably the soil is more fertile for such a model in some places than others, but that's true for everything, isn't it?

  You may be interested to know that there is a successful example of a business operating along non-hierarchical lines right here in California -- the largest tomato processing company in the world. In fact it so happens that the company was founded by a libertarian who has been a major donor to the Libertarian Party -- http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/12/27/morningstar .

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Starchild:

Apparently Europeans think socialism "works" or they would not elect so many socialist governments. The smaller and more homogeneous a community is, the more likely socialism or some form of collectivism will work.

I never said that the Mondragon model "couldn't" work in the US, but I think it is less likely to work here because we lack the ethnic homogeneity that make collectivism work in some places.

BTW the Japanese are very collectivist and communal oriented. They are not particularly egalitarian though.

"Those who think egalitarianism is better also seem to think government must promote or mandate it". "I think this tells us precisely nothing about the merits of egalitarianism". I think it tells us a great deal about the merits of egalitarianism.

Les

Les,

Does socialism -- by which I assume you mean *state* socialism, not the voluntary kind practiced in families, communes, and other non-government endeavors -- really "work better" in Europe than it does in the U.S.? My impression is that it does not work anywhere, if by "work" we mean either "fulfill the goals of most of its supporters" or " produce a better and more just society". To the extent state socialism is *more popular* in Europe, I imagine there are many and complex historical and sociological reasons for that. For if it were mainly a matter of ethnic homogeneity, then we should expect to find this political philosophy even more popular in highly homogenous places like Japan.

In this context, as in many others, I don't think we can correlate relative scarcity with lack of merit. If there are many more apples than blueberries in the world, does that mean apples are "better" than blueberries? Is human superiority to other species disproved or called into question by the fact that there are many more insects, or pine trees, than there are human beings?

"Those who think egalitarianism is better also seem to think government must promote it or even mandate it" -- I believe this tells us precisely nothing about the merits of egalitarianism. Consider that those who think streets without graffiti are better than streets with graffiti also tend to think that government must promote or even mandate their preference. Ditto for those who think public parks are better when homeless people are not allowed to camp in them.

Probably you are right however that Mondragon having happened in the Basque region of Spain is not an accident. Besides the presence of the Basques themselves, I suspect the legacy of the Spanish Civil War may also be a factor. Spain, after all, was where self-identified anarchists came closest, during the last century, to taking power, and the Basques were mainly allied with the losing republican/anarchist side of the struggle, which was more supportive of their autonomy.

Do these circumstances mean that something like the Mondragon Cooperatives could not work in other places, such as the United States? That would seem to be drawing a sweeping conclusion based on scant evidence. Presumably the soil is more fertile for such a model in some places than others, but that's true for everything, isn't it?

You may be interested to know that there is a successful example of a business operating along non-hierarchical lines right here in California -- the largest tomato processing company in the world. In fact it so happens that the company was founded by a libertarian who has been a major donor to the Libertarian Party -- http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/12/27/morningstar .

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

This does sound interesting. Two issues come to my mind

1. This Mondragon Coop movement is based in the Basque region of northern Spain. The Basques are an ethnic minority speaking a language that has no known relatives any else in the world. I wonder if there might be an ethnic dimension to this "egalitarianism". That is, some of those at the top could choose to work at a Basque co-op rather than an Spanish speaking company where they could make more money in order to be in a Basque environment. Socialism works better in Europe partly because most European countries a more ethnically uniform than the US

and so people feel more solidarity.

2. If worker co-ops and egalitarian structures are superior to other arrangements, one wonders why there are not more of them. Claiming that egalitarianism is superior to hierarchianism is rather like claiming that dodos are superior to pigeons. If so, then why are there so few dodos around and so many pigeons? Curiously those who think egalitarianism is better also seem to think government must promote it or even mandate it, which seems self-contradictory to me.

Les

When it comes to government, libertarians are often and rightly skeptical of if not outright hostile toward central planning, top-down systems of control, and so on. But in the voluntary sector, libertarians, like many if not most other people, have tended to take such hierarchical models for granted and assume this is just the natural way of things -- that any worker-owned or democratically-run business that tries to operate along more egalitarian lines is likely to suffer the fate of the 20th Century Motor Company in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged".

Clearly, communal-type ventures face pitfalls and many have failed. But is such failure inevitable? Is it natural or necessary to have an administrative or managerial class set above other workers to tell them how to do their jobs? Do members of this class tend to be far better compensated than other workers because their skills truly command so much more value in a free market, or do current compensation levels merely reflect the fact that their class controls management and administration and thus they are generally the ones setting the rules for compensation? Might there be a viable free market approach that would be more empowering to individuals and thus more conducive to bolstering self-government and bottom-up control in society, while still adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle?

A forum happening next weekend in Palo Alto on an interesting economic experiment that's been happening in Spain (Wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_cooperatives) could help shed some light on these questions, or at least provide food for thought for free-thinking libertarians interested in topics like mutualism, individual empowerment, agorism, and so on.

I'm interested in attending myself if anyone can offer a ride from SF (can chip in for gas).

Love & Liberty,
(((

starchild )))

From: Bay Area Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists/Freethinkers/Skeptics <info@meetup.com>

Date: July 14, 2014 1:07:32 PM PDT
To: sfdreamer@earthlink.net
Subject: Sunday: Can you make "Forum: The Mondragon Cooperatives (Richard Hobbs)"?

SUNDAY
Forum: The Mondragon Cooperatives (Richard Hobbs)
Bay Area Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists/Freethinkers/Skeptics
Sunday, July 20, 2014
11:00 AM
Palo Alto High School
50 Embarcadero Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Are

you going?

Les,

  "The smaller and more homogeneous a community is, the more likely socialism or some form of collectivism will work" -- in practical terms, I think that statement is generally accurate. However "homogenous" is ultimately a matter of mindset, not one of race. This is important because it means that solidarity can flourish anywhere, if people want it badly enough or they find themselves in an environment where it is socially expected or demanded. Consider the cohesion in military units made up of people from diverse backgrounds, for example. Only when people are thinking in racist terms does race become an issue.

  If you believe the fact that many (not all, many) who favor egalitarianism want government to promote or mandate it tells us a great deal about the merits of egalitarianism, do you also believe that the desire of many who favor keeping graffiti off public streets want government to promote or mandate this tells us a great deal about the merits of that approach? If not, please explain why the double standard?

  Anyway, it will be interesting to see what insights on all this can be garnered from next Sunday's event, if we make it down there.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

I have no idea what you are talking about in the second paragraph. I see no connection at all between
1. Using force to promote egalitarian social structures and
2. Prohibiting people from painting graffiti on public streets.

Graffiti artists do not for the most part own the surfaces on which they are painting graffiti. It's true that they are part of the public, but they are not the sole owners of the property they are defacing. they have no right to deface property without the permission of the other owners.

I have no idea what "double standard" you are referring to.

Les,

&quot;The smaller and more homogeneous a community is, the more likely socialism or some form of collectivism will work&quot; \-\- in practical terms, I think that statement is generally accurate\. However &quot;homogenous&quot; is ultimately a matter of mindset, not one of race\. This is important because it means that solidarity can flourish anywhere, if people want it badly enough or they find themselves in an environment where it is socially expected or demanded\. Consider the cohesion in military units made up of people from diverse backgrounds, for example\. Only when people are thinking in racist terms does race become an issue\.

If you believe the fact that many \(not all, many\) who favor egalitarianism want government to promote or mandate it tells us a great deal about the merits of egalitarianism, do you also believe that the desire of many who favor keeping graffiti off public streets want government to promote or mandate this tells us a great deal about the merits of that approach? If not, please explain why the double standard?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what insights on all this can be garnered from next Sunday&#39;s event, if we make it down there\.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

I would have liked to see opinions that focused on the cooperative model vs modern capitalistic or socialist models. But, alas, we have again drifted into the right to splash graffiti arena. Had this event been closer, I certainly would be planning to go, since I am very interested in the subject. These two articles point to perceived vulnerabilities in the cooperative model. The supposed vulnerability I found most interesting is that the model does not take into account a planned economy, but tries to be competitive in the free market. Horrors! I thought competing in the free market is what business was supposed to do! Another vulnerability is size -- small works, large not so much -- and the article points to the bankruptcy of Fagor, one of the principal cooperatives.

So apparently Mondragon, although ostensibly still committed to the cooperative model, is in the midst of doing some soul searching.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19704-mondragon-and-the-system-problem

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/12/1268841/-Anti-Capitalist-Meetup-Fagor-Goes-Bankrupt-Trouble-in-Camelot#

If you are interested in the articles, but the links don't work for you, just Google "Mondragon, Fagor."

Marcy

Well Les, damaging property is one thing, but in most cases graffiti does not actually cause damage -- to the contrary, it adds a layer of protective coating. Some people merely find it unsightly if it is not old enough**, that's all. Of course I'm taking a bit of rhetorical license in the previous sentence -- I do not myself find ALL contemporary graffiti attractive or desirable, nor do I believe that most people who favor forceful government suppression of public street art are against ALL new graffiti (or like all old graffiti).

  Nevertheless I do find problematic the statement that "they are not the sole owners of the property they are defacing. they have no right to deface property without the permission of the other owners." First of all, "defacement" is subjective. One person's defacement is another person's art! Regarding permission, I see three basic ways in which a set of rules could fairly govern the use of property in which multiple people share ownership and have different desires or priorities for how they'd like it used:

(1) None of the owners can use the property without the consent of the other owners
(2) All of the owners can use the property so long as they do not deny other owners the same rights; or
(3) Some blend of options #1 and #2

  Your statement above appears to endorse option #1, while ignoring options #2 and #3. Yet it seems to me that option #2 is if anything somewhat *more* libertarian than option #1, because it allows an individual to peaceably exercise his or her ownership rights *without the approval of others*. Meanwhile, under a pure application of option #1, no one could use the public streets for *anything*, including walking or driving, unless ALL the other owners agreed! That would tend to result in an impasse which could be peaceably resolved only by negotiation -- e.g., I'll agree to permit you to paint graffiti on the street if you agree to permit me to drive my car on the street.

  What we have today, of course, is something in the category of option #3: People are allowed to use the public streets and sidewalks for certain peaceful purposes (e.g. walking, driving, parking vehicles for short amounts of time, government-approved protests, drinking soda, etc.), while other peaceful uses (graffiti, sleeping, having sex, parking vehicles for longer periods of time, non-government-approved protests, drinking alcohol, etc.) are disallowed. But this it seems to me is definitely NOT libertarian -- it is simply the tyranny of the majority of owners, as enforced through government, with little regard for the rights of minorities who wish to exercise their ownership in different ways not approved of by the majority.

                                * * *

  But all this, while interesting, is a tangent unrelated to my original point. My reason for mentioning government bans on public graffiti was simply to give an example of an idea that you presumably support DESPITE the fact that people tend to favor using government force to impose it, as a means of demonstrating what I believe to be the flawed nature of what I took to be your original claim, namely that one can fairly judge the merits of a particular idea -- whatever it is -- by how likely it is that people who support that idea will favor using government in order to realize it.

  If I say Idea A lacks merit BECAUSE lots of people favor using government force to impose it, but Idea B which lots of people also favor using government force to impose does NOT lack merit, that seems to me a double standard.

  I hope this clarifies my previous comments.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

**The Roman ruins at Pompeii are full of Roman-era graffiti, but most people tend to find this graffiti interesting and worth preserving, and do not consider it as defacing the architecture or needing to be removed.

P.S. - There is a somewhat offensively worded but nevertheless insightful statement I heard once to the effect of, "No society likes its own niggers." The lesson I draw from that quote is that it is good to try to step outside the narrow views and prejudices of our own time, place, social class, etc., and consider people and things as objectively as possible. People and things we might find irritating due to familiarity, we might find fascinating or charming if we look at them through the eyes of a stranger, or a tourist in Pompeii.

Management is the buyer of labor for the consumer. Ultimately, it is the consumer at the top of the hierarchy, calling the shots with its money.