Topic of the Week: the Co-operative Movement

  • Posted on: 6 June 2016
  • By: thecollective

Co-operative modes of property, labor, production, distribution, and consumption have been around as long as their hierarchical alternatives. Sometimes anarchists have argued in favor of cooperatives: that the workers are able to own and manage the enterprise, make decisions together as stake-holders, and operate with an emphasis on other values besides competitive profit-making. Other times, cooperatives have been criticized as self-exploitation, reformist, and/or counter-revolutionary. The fact that working for a co-op is still work isn't news to anyone; and, it isn't necessarily better to deal with everyone's bossy side, instead of just one or two bosses. Still, depending on the situation, it could be a more or less worthwhile compromise in a world where "no compromise" isn't always a beneficial position.

This week we're asking that you share your thoughts on, and experiences with co-ops: as workers, as customers, as supporters and/or critics.



Bourgeois attempts to play at community, reproduced capitalism and exploitation, reified as The Good, perpetuated for the sake of the organization itself, pacified, alienated, greenwashed escapism. You seem to think "compromise" is not inherently reformist.

Better than having a Boss. Anarchy is reformism, we are trying to improve our lot in life. We want a free society. So we take every bit we can get.

Coops by themselves are not the answer, neither are unions because they do not escape the demands of the market.
However Coops as part of a revolutionary movement form a material basis for the surviaval of communities without bosses.

It should come as no suprise that collectives and cooperatives form a vital economic component to both the Rojava revolution and The Zapatista revolution.
Also the spanish revolution collectives and cooperatives played an important role.

Also in US history there were industrial cooperative communities that functiined without money. Cooperatives are about workers independence and survival.

The fact is when you do not allow bosses, you either have independent artisans and cooperatives or collectives. There is no other way to organize economic life. Labels do not matter these are the ways productiin is organized.

Revolution ain't never gonna happen, nor would it be anarchy if it did

must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed."

Max Stirner

Yes revolution is binary regurgitation.

The commies and social anarchists and that new "solarpunk" fad can all try to make co-operatives or unions or mob rule democratic assemblies to their hearts content. Doesnt matter. Its all gonna come crashing down in the collapse.

Stop with the childish dreams of utopia kids. Whether its some "post-scarcity" technotopia or some collection of pathetic food co-ops trying to do capitalism better than the capitalists.

There actually might not be any collapse I'm sad to say.

They could be experiments in anarchy.

Any co-operative must have free labor and the education of all youth as apprentices of life for the creation of facilities, accomodation and the maintenance of an anti-currency economic model as its foundation and the distribution of all surplus to the collective masses free and without debt.

After this transitional co-op stage, mutual-aid becomes the intuitive driving force behind social relationships, its benefits being self-evident and astoundingly easy to maintain.

cooperation as defined in this article is intention-driven just as hierarchical 'co-operation is'.

'mutual aid' as found in indigenous anarchism and in nature is situationally actualized.

the two are inverted with respect to the animating source; i.e. intention-directed is rational and inside-outward driven, ... situation-actualized is intuitive and outside-inward actualized.

this article speaks of cooperation in the machine model tradition which is basically the same as the hierarchical machine model but with a flat structure, kind of like the Wankel vehicle where the central engine was done away with and an engine built into each of the wheels. in both of these cases of mechanical cooperation (flat [we intend to produce this result] and hierarchical [i intend for us to produce this result]), intentional drive and direction is in an unnatural precedence over situational actualization ['we are going to produce this result' and/or 'you are going to produce this result'].

[mechanical dynamics exist only in 'semantic reality', ... the physical reality of our natural experience is 'situational' and it actualizes mutual aid among forms that do not need a language, nor do they need intended results (sustaining relational balance and harmony is naturally sufficient)].

the cooperation being discussed in this article is nothing like the mutual aid of Kropotkin and indigenous anarchism.

Could you explain a bit more about the inside-out ward and the outside-inward divide? I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure?

they got some good stuff there
sometimes i jack it

I think, insofar as work happens, I could see this being an effective model to organize under and learn to do more shit together than just smashing things (which I'm all for. But I can't eat broken glass.) and work toward a common goal. The problem is, at the end of the day, the common goal of workers cooperatives under capitalism isn't to directly feed themselves and their community, or clothe themselves, or build things because they're necessary... it's capitalist production and accumulation.

Fellow workers will frame it as survival. There will always be the pressure for people to operate more effectively under a capitalist logic. And to occasionally work for free. And to forego tips to the business's collective gullet. And to do a bunch of shit that, if it were happening in a place where you didn't feel so invested and part of something you'd be taking action to get those things back. Eventually folks who aren't down will figure it what's up and head their separate ways either to make better money elsewhere or to try a new experiment and those who either don't, or who think it's worth it and have been accepted into the inner circle of "full membership" will hang on valiantly (while bitterly becoming martyrs and bosses to the new wave of folks they hire on).

On the flip side I think there is potential in the long, often frustrating, decision making process. In the day to day knowledge that, if you make any profit it'll be in a direct way through your own labor and end up in your pocket. Kinda like collective freelancing. Except, often, with some much bigger overhead expenses. Having some ability to exercise control over your own labor and the direction it takes definitely feels more rewarding/personally than being in the service of another person's vision.

This all being said. When it is working, I can definitely see the potential in the model. I think I just haven't seen an example of that quite yet. But my few years of experience at one of the longest standing ones in Canada that was formed around expressly anarchist principles (that recently closed) made me think that maybe something better could be found by sifting through the ashes of the model. I'm still puzzling over what that could look like.

As far as worker coops require some level of membership, they fucking suck and are just socially reformist like any other Mickey Mouse socialist project.

How about... (1) starting socially-dynamic spaces -like cross-gender saunas, squats or communal houses- then (2) form some sort of "Looters Guild" where all kinds of foods and other stuff is brought only to be shared freely, then (3) discreetely occupy some non-contaminated green area not too far out of town and (4) have fun, collective meals, sex, conspire and make babies (if you can of course).

Also assembly-centered living arragements are total suck. Assemblies as power-centralizing political activities are dehumanizing and unnatural to human interactions. We need less formalities and codifications, not more.

Meet me somewhere in a discarded green area at the fringes of Mtl (...or not!). Nothing like birds and a soft breeze through the trees in the morning.

Just wanted to add... Aren't we (the asocial anarchists) supposed to be against work and the Left side of its ideology (workerism) in the first place? A workers co-op reads exactly like a liberal reforming of labor, within the clutches and nowhere in contradiction with the commodity-society... Not even its religion of Capital.

I'm just saying, behind those crazy ideas above that I'm sure less than 7% of self-assumed anarchists, that you need some seriously anticap praxis in order to build anarchy out of this social machine. Although each of us have got time to experiment and proof-test, lotsa energies and especially good intents were wasted on socially reformist crap over the past years/decades. "At daggers drawn" can and should also be a principle for a living, not just momentary outbursts of insurgency.

So why not coming up with something that's really got an edge and will more importantly keep it sharp, for once?

My TAM obliterates all the workerist ethics, feeds everyone, and offers habitats and free zones of ones own choosing, all with the basic necessities catered for by a minimalist non-attendance of authority and hierarchy! Its not that hard to achieve really.

My TAM is better and more utopian than your TAM. Mine obliterates all pain and suffering and offers ice cream and cookies without fear of health problems. All the basic necessities are brought to everyone by unicorns and angels. It's not that hard to achieve really.

. Each to their own But why evaluate and compare?

Felix, that was a trolls mediocre parody of my comment, as you say, there is no comparison between individualists.

No such thing as individualism.

Depends on your definition, I can see your point, no one is really an island in reality, though " individualism " can be used to describe personal choices and actions in life which are a paradox to the moral majority. Unknown to you? Because they are a rare species of folk, misfits or outcasts, those who are excluded from the collectives and guilds of an increasingly hegemonic social order because they challenge the dominant metaphysical status quo, so yes, you are correct in a roundabout sort of way, I use the term "individual " to describe creative folk who break the casting mould of traditional systems, iconoclasts and rebels, anarchists, which one poster said were reformists in a broad not ideological sense, meaning liberal.
A free life is the only masterpiece the artiste must pursue, even if the soul is dragged through the mill of physical hardship and desolation, as Wilde said, "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"

This all makes sense to me. And is defs closer to how I want to live.

Ffs. But apparently the way these threads work still doesn't make any sense to me.

No argument with you there friend!

So now shitstain Leway has a friend? Shouldn't have said "shitstain"... I think the guy really enjoys having his balls crushed with a hammer. That's why he keeps coming back here.

I dunno who Leway is/don't really follow the comments usually so haven't noted the ball crushing. But I was trying to respond to fauvenoir's responce and seem to have messed that up somehow.

And I suppose "friend" is too familiar a term to use when engaging in chats with folks who may or may not be strangers. But meh. I feel like it gets the enthusiasm I was trying to express forward.

Yes the responses get muddled a bit, I think it was I who actually got it all back to front, anyway, welcome to @news Billy and my private war against the Syndicalist doctrine ;)

The biggest obstacle to overcome is having faith enough in oneself to throw all desires and calcified habits to the wind, to think intuitively and spontaneously without allowing mediation to hinder the process of any organic representation. The transitional phase is in fact an evolutionary process, it has only become "transitional" because the usual flow of experience and refinement has stalled and fixated on materialism at the expense of the perfection of inter relational dynamics and a return to the natural amoral values we are born with. The Anartiste Manuscript (TAM) describes all these things.

A few years ago, my sister's boyfriend told me that I could start working with him at his parent's company. They knew that I don't like bosses and that I'm an anarchist, but they said that there are no bosses because it is a cooperative. So I started working there and it was total bullshit. There were not any bosses because the real bosses were all of the other companies that hired us to do their accounts and their technical support like banks and stupid gadgets. We sat in meetings every day to make sure we did everything they wanted us to do because we had contracts and these companies would just complain all the time that we were not doing the right thing for THEIR customers. Not only were we getting shit from the companies all the time, but all the work was just getting shit from people every day. Then we would try to pay ourselves and we could only pay ourselves based on the money we got from our contracts. Fuck cooperatives.

Customer service and telemarketing will make you less kill yourself if it's Red and Black, comrade!!!

The worker cooperative is a model for post-capitalism.

No matter what happens, after capitalism, if we are hunters and gathers, eco / sustainable, or whatever else, post capitalism will have to have modes of production that are 1 of 3 forms -- hierarchical, horizontal, or autonomous. Autonomous work seems weird since we've never had that on a mass scale, and if it is hierarchical then we just have capitalism without the state.

whatever comes next will be horizontal & therefore cooperative.

the only critique of the co-op movement is those who seek to exist in capitalism and don't have a desire to see it die.

the co-op movement is a MODEL for post-capitalist labor relations. It should be regarded as a concrete example that can function as propaganda for anti-capitalism.

One can be an insurrectionist and support cooperatives. After the insurrection there will have to be labor relations even if it is hunter gathers -- if those relations are horizontal they are based on cooperation.

You're a moron... You simply can't have "post-capitalism" all the while capitalism is not just alive and well, but still massively followed as the one and only way to subsist and improve your conditions on this planet.

Your tunnel-vision theory refuses to see the reality of capitalism as a totalitarian, religious system which indoctrinates people so deeply and effectively as its principles to look and feel "natural", its despotisms a fact of " life", and therefore to equate society with "life".

Get a grip, you social anarchist.

Your understanding of capitalism is poor. You've confused the effects of capitalism with the definition which is 'private ownership of means of production'. We can change who owns the means of productions and therefore enter post-capitalism, however the effects of capitalism can linger for an indefinite amount of time. The social effects produced by capitalism are different from capitalism which is a pure economic system.

If you use your definition of capitalism then you can't demarcate any change because everything just carries on and produces the next system, therefore we are still a feudalist society and therefore a hunter and gatherer society. We may be the effect of those societies but we do not live in those economic systems.

'private ownership of means of production'

No you dupe, that's just liberal capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith. It's one -quite outdated- form of capitalism that's got taken over long ago by a oligarchic, ollectivistic form of State corporatism. The era of self-made men -if they ever existed- is well over.

Capitalism is the ideology and system focusing on Capital accumulation through organized means and schemes. The end justifies the means, so they are not separate.

wrong, their is an ideology that coincides with the era where property was held almost entirely by private groups and individuals. then their is the ownership of private means of production, then there are all the effects of the system. capitalism refers simply to the economic relationship where property is owned privately, the ideology that coincides with it and the effects produced by it are not capitalism. when all property is no longer owned privately we are no longer in capitalism even if effects and ideology persist. if you use this definition we are still in feudalism and hunter gatherer societies.

then that's not capitalism, because capitalism is simply private ownership of means of production, what you are referring to is a form of mixed state backed capitalism. the ideology is perhaps produced through the constraints of capitalism, but it is distinct from capitalism, once you change the ownership of property you change the system even if the ideology and effects linger.

Such stupid paper-thin definition of capitalism negates any radical critique of Soviet and Maoist socialist, as systems of State capitalism, where mere private property was banished all the while defending hardcore bureaucratic and oligarchic capitalism. A vision that may of course be accommodating to your own prejudice as a socialist or maoist fuckwit, where it is helping cast a blind eye over the issue of capitalism through bureaucratic, or formal politics schemes of capital accumulation.

What happened in Russia, China, Vietnam and now North Korea is standing proof of how statist socialism is nowhere a protection against capitalism, no matter how it is repressive against private property, and how capitalism -not only as ideology but as social political relationship- doesn't have to be based on "private ownership" in the primal sense as defined by the industrial era liberals.

I still hold that capitalism is the doctrine of organized capital accumulation and consolidation.

if you think that, practically speaking, capitalism is a "pure economic system", then you are delusional - i don't care what some old fucking definition says. capitalism is a ubiquitous and all encompassing ideology that includes not just economics, but social relations, hierarchical structures (including the state), coercion on a scale never seen before, etc etc etc.

why do you refuse to separate the ownership of property which is capitalism, from the effects produced by capitalism?? Why don't you want to make the distinction between ideology, property ownership, and social relations?

And what response do you have to my point that if you don't make these distinctions you can't say any system ever ends because those relations, ideology, etc are formed by the preceding society, therefore we are just living in a fucked up hunter gatherer society? I say we aren't living in a hunter gatherer society even if the ideology we have today stems from that period because our economic system doesn't treat property the same way.

"Why do you refuse to separate the ownership of property which is capitalism, from the effects produced by capitalism??"

Because, socialist blowhard, this separation only exists in your mind. And I see neither a cause or a reason for reifiying it.

there is a difference between capitalism and a capitalist society.

Yeah yeah thats like theres a difference between hunger and growing vegetables rite amirite?

Hey ho comrade! Capitalist society can be spared away from the evil capitalist ogre so it can be reformed and turned into a Red capitalist utopia. Then stupix workerist troll above wil get a nifty position in the cadre, the who's going to carw about the issue of capital accumulation when he's travelling by the coast with his hippie girlfriend in a shiny neew Beetle?

capitalism produces effects, those things are separate from capitalism which is the private ownership of means of production.

you can change ownership to being worked owned, and then non-capitalist relations can start to form.

Rite, so if Im a worker owner and Im hungry rite, I can go to the production line and help myself to the vegies and sausages on the conveyor belt and no one is gonna say like Hey you what the fuck you doin get back to fuckin work that pumkin and kabana is comin outta your freakin pay you fuckin dumbass rite amirite huh? Non capitalist relationship is like Hey you hungry help yourself we'll just turn off the conveyor belt so you can catch up on your diet and Hey the rest of you guys why dont we all just stop production and eat all the food and take it back home to family theres nuff here to last oo what maybe 100 process workers families maybe 2 weeks so lets just stop the conveyor production Hey I'll call the farmer and tell him to slow down sending all the pumkpin and kabana sausage for 2 weeks rite thats non-capitalist relationship rite amirite?

so you think if property was owned by the workers, we'd still work 40+ hours a week ... which implies you assume economics doesn't affect politics ... wow

like syndicalism may well lead to a worse political economic system then we have today which is saying something.

Is anarchy only an art and literary movement where intellectuals squabble over words?
Perfection without paradox is not the goal, freedom in the real world is.
I wonder why all anarchist revolutions come from outside the self described anarchist milieu? Could it be the focus on ideas over material and social conditions has made anarchists elitist and removed from thw real world.
To change the world we have to get our hands dirty and make mistakes.

Go to an anarchist book fair, No Bookchin, no Ocalan. Barely any writing from theorists whose ideas have been put into successful practice.

Many critiques that amount to nothing but something to say to sound cool.
How do we make an anarchism in the US that is more grounded in reality, capable of organizing and making a revolutiin someday?

How does one get removed from what one is? (Your comment about 'The Real World').

I can think a lot of different thoughts. Still breathing air. Still included in the space we all share with every form of life (earth, universe). We already are the earth, the universe.

Comment is a poor way to put people down---a projection. You're free to do that. Fine. But, tell me more about this place, The Real World. It sounds so far away like Heaven. And, like heaven, a conceptualized separation.

physical reality is what we experience, which differs radically from the science/logic-based semantic reality that is the institutionalized 'operative reality' of Western society.

the real world was the world of our experience before the tools of science and logic 'ran away with the workman' [Emerson].

as nietzsche [and mach, emerson and others] have said, we are confusing the 'semantic realities' of science and logic [subjective, incomplete logical truths] for reality.

“We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

i love this comment <3 fuck the anarchists who criticize but won't do anything productive

they should be called dead-weight-anarchists

You realize emile does nothing but type endless screeds here, yes?

a society of mutual aid, an ecosystem, is not about a collective gathering together to 'produce something'. "modes of production" is machine-think, whether horizontal or vertical.

'machine-think' built into Western civilization is the problem, not the solution.

the farmer does not really 'produce wheat', that is 'machine-think' that comes from subject-verb-predicate language-and-grammar.

the real challenge lies not in 'moving on to something new' but to unlearn our machine-think addiction.

best emile comment i've seen in quite some time.

but emile, even if i agree with your point about machine-think, it is inevitable that relations of production take one of 4 forms -- vertical, horizontal, autonomous, or none. What is your response to my argument that anarchist society must either be horizontal or autonomous and that autonomous is unlikely since we've never seen it in history.

my point was that your assumption is based on organization in terms of 'things' and 'what things do' [one-sided 'genetic expression'] whereas, in the physical reality of our natural experience, organization is inductively actualized so that 'anarchist society' does not organize itself, but is epigenetically induced. imagine a group that roams around without a plan or purpose, but eager to experience new situations as they unfold, actualizing one's creative potentials in a continuing 'situational fetalization', a nietzschean 'amor fati gang'. is this not a more realistic view of organizing in nature, then consensus and cooperation-driven action [inside-outward asserting genetic expression]?

Best? As in chronic scrolling finger damage can finally begin the long path to recovery starting with the disappearance of inflamation and callouses?

yes, both short AND actually comprehensible by non-academics.

the collective deletes comments, that's sad, wish we could go back to the day where we could speak freely on this website.

the gist of my point was that thecollective appears to follow Western society's pursuit of building consensus for conducting co-operative initiatives.

if one believes that consensus and cooperation are a good idea, then one wants to remove those participants that tend to discredit established consensus. for example, if a group of politicians come together in an open forum during an election campaign to debate views on what is best for the state, ... and some of the participants question the wisdom of believing in the existence of the state, ... [e.g. like indigenous aboriginals], ... this 'going back to basics' will be seen as disruptive and annoying to those interested only in moving beyond consensus to co-operation, and they are likely to label it 'off topic'.

thecollective, in its topic of the week write-ups, seems to assume that consensus and co-operation are the way to go. emile's comments do not support 'consensus and co-operation' or any other machine-think concepts.

perhaps anarchists will form 'wild anarchist bands' roaming the land with amor fati ethics; i.e. who are ready, willing and eager to undergo transformation in their encounters with unfolding situations that actualize creative potentials in them that they never knew they had. ... does it seem appropriate that they are going to stop each evening and have a meeting where they hope to arrive at a concensus that they can all buy into so as to co-formulate tomorrow's cooperative plan of action?

That's sad, because the collective's machine-think will have them deleting your comment on their deleting your comment on deleting your comments and they will probably delete my comment on them deleting your comment on their deleting your comment on deleting your comments, which is very Stalinist! Fuck collectives and co-ops, they complicate the simplest creative potentials!!

More comments from people who work(ed) in co-ops of any sort and less intellectual drivel, please.

I've worked for multiple co-op structured businesses. It's definitely a pro and con situation. Obviously, work in general (under capitalism) is not an anti-capitalist/anti-authoritarian activity whether it's a co-op or not. Yes, it's odd to have everyone thinking they can be the boss instead of one person definitively being the boss. It can be dramatic and ridiculous, sometimes I feel as if I'd rather just have one boss to hate rather than have all these complicated relationships. Yes, we still need to make a profit to stay afloat, it's definitely a capitalist endeavor, duh. At the same time, survival is a thing, and if I'm going to have to survive some way or another, I'd rather do it in a situation that I have the slightest bit more control over. No, co-ops are not revolutionary nor are they a major improvement over service work that isn't co-operatively run. But it's a matter of elbow room, having a little more money, having a little more say, working under less severe threats of poverty, etc. I don't mind having a little more elbow room. My experience in collectively owned and operated businesses is that I have a little more room to breathe, and I believe that I can appreciate this without promoting rigid leftist ideology or compromising my anti-authoritarian ideals.

i have worked in several co-ops. the actual daily grind may be a bit less structured and confined than a more typical corporate or retail job, but the core elements of a capitalist corporation remain. board of directors = members/shareholders, decisions are made that everyone must adhere to, and mainly.... the need to make MONEY (if not actual "profit") is paramount. not really a big break from the status quo, imo.

(same anon here)

just because all the owner/employees may get a say in decision-making, the fact that those decisions must be adhered to by ALL makes it no different from political/electoral democracy. and hopefully nobody here is going to promote democracy as a liberatory system.

in a transforming relational continuum [the physically real world of modern physics], creation (production) and destruction (consumption) are ONE dynamic, not two. the intellectual introduction of 'being' breaks the ongoing relational transformation of nature into intellectual terms of 'things', recapturing dynamics in terms of 'what things do'. we model 'human beings' as 'local systems with inputs and outputs [consumption and production], this is the 'machine-think' abstraction that sets the stage for a 'market economy'; i.e. creation/production and destruction/consumption are NOT REALLY two separate things, unless one chooses to make the being-based machine-think 'semantic reality' one's 'reality of choice'.

The noun-and-verb language-and-grammar introduction of 'being' also forces the abstract splitting apart of 'inhabitant' and 'habitat', opening the door to the notion of inhabitants owning chunks of habitat [landlords] and then claiming themselves to be the 'producers' of the bounty of the land. this puts the few [landlords] in a position to extort labours from the many, who, as 'consumers' require access to the essential resources of the land.

co-ops attempt to re-integrate consuming with producing and put the natural circularity back together, but , but can only do so in a 'distribution' sense since the products are 'owned' by third parties, all of these abstract conventions being backed up by law/regulation and enforcement by police and law courts.

language and logic are thus the source of intellectually breaking apart inhabitants and habitat, and creation [production] and destruction [consumption]. the keystone concept is 'man' portrayed as a 'local system' with 'inputs' and 'outputs' [powers of creation and destruction]. all of this is abstraction which is the underpinning of Western culture.

consensus and cooperation are crude attempts to deal with problems arising from intellectually fragmenting the transforming relational continuum, into a notional collection of 'independent beings', ... 'local systems' with their own inputs and outputs. we know what language-and-grammar does to storm-cells like Katrina; i.e. while the cell IS the influx and outflux of the energy-charged medium it gathers in, noun-and-verb language-and-grammar imputes 'being' to the cell, in which case 'it' [the former relational form in the transforming flow] is portrayed as a local system with the power of authorship of 'its' inputs and outputs [productions and consumptions].

“Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. “Reason” in language — oh, what an old deceptive witch she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

non-human forms do not have egos that have them think of themselves as possessors of jumpstart powers of creation and destruction (production and consumption) as in the machine-think of Western civilization. but those with such egos [this excludes indigenous anarchists] set themselves up as pawns of a 'market economy'.

5 people got fired. I stopped getting food there.

It would probably be cooperative. There's a whole question of whether I should do such a thing, of course, but maybe I want such a thing in my neighbourhood, maybe I want a less shit sort of job.

Going into an established co-op, and especially one that was successful enough in the capitalist economy to be able to hire for some reason beyond nepotism, I wouldn't expect any amount of real coolness. If anything, I'd expect a worse culture of obligation and demand for efficiency than elsewhere. maybe with a dose of having to deal with all coworkers' pet peeves, not just those of the boss.

What a bunch of bourgeois Marxist drivel. Cooperatives are just playing pretend in the management of its workers. There is nothing wrong with just doing a normal hierarchical business and most are less passive aggressive douchebags than co-op dandys. It is hit or miss, like most things in life. In my neighborhood, a hotdog bar just opened up. Awesome place. Probably not a co-op, but the people are nice. Anarchists need to get a stronger theory of what drives them to action rather than relying on bourgeois Marxism and trying to fit into a box. Anarchists that aren't about creating an understanding of what drives them to act, but instead want to dictate anarchy or anarchism, can fuck off.

Audience based theories of anarchy is the problem. Marxism plays a significant role in the aim for a revolution, rather than just explaining action and why it happens. The need for effectiveness in Marxist terms is always confusing and this bourgeois co-op Marxism is the worst. Why is a co-op being considered by anarchists? What makes it anarchistic? I see why so many are against this civic interpretation of anarchy, which attempts to create anarchy by playing nice with the state. It isn't co-ops, but friendly co-ops, that matter, to anarchists, who are explicitly anarchists, acting as anarchists, towards the destruction of the social order. That is the context. Without context, without acknowledging history, it becomes a bunch of bourgeois Marxist drivel.

Like a whole street of people grow vegetables and every morning its like Hey everyone bring all your vegies down to the corner and it all put together all the extra spare stuff and like everyone says take what you need of this or that an the person with 10 sweet potato wants some tomatoes and lettuces and the person with 10 lettuces says Hey I'll take some potato and you can have some lettuce you want some onion to yes I want celery for my stew well here is some pumpkin and someone says Hey we gonna split this into seller and accountant and gardener and everyone just tells him to fuck off with the organization just go wit the flow amirite ?And then some guy fixes computers and the person with 10 pumpkins says Hey I'll give you 4 pumpkin if you fix my keyboard rite? An dthe organizational structure can fuck off, the secretary and foreman they have to grow obtain there own vegies or fuck off and not eat other peoples pie by just standing around giving orders rite rite ,

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.