Skip Navigation
Remote View
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
Yondoza @sh.itjust.works

Why don't communist movements focus on creating and nurturing employee owned businesses?

The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class. Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.

It seems to me that most communist organizations in capitalist societies focus on reform through government policies. I have not heard of organizations focusing on making this change by leveraging the capitalist framework. Working to create many employee owned businesses would be a tangible way to achieve this on a small but growing scale. If successful employee owned businesses are formed and accumulate capital they should be able to perpetuate employee ownership through direct acquisition or providing venture capital with employee ownership requirements.

So my main questions are:

  1. Are organizations focusing on this and I just don't know about it?
  2. If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?
153 comments

  • In the US there are organizations that focus on and advocate for employee ownership. National Center for Employee Ownership, The ESOP Association, The Employee Ownership Foundation, and Employee-owned S Corporations of America.

    I think the public should absolutely be more educated in ESOPs because it's an absolute win/win (IMO). It is not the communist concept of workers seizing the means of production (i.e. taking the capital away at a loss to ownership), so that may be why you don't hear communists advocating for it. In most cases, a business owner who wants to protect what they've worked on for X amount of time "sells" the company to itself and the company gives ownership stake to the employees by some predetermined formula.

    So Bob spent 30 years as owner of a widget company. It's been in the family since his grandpa started it. He'll be retiring in the next few years and his family doesn't want to take over. He also doesn't want to sell to his competitors or some conglomerate that will close the factory, fire everyone, keep the name and the customer list and sell cheap imported knock offs. So the company takes out a loan and buys itself from him. Every employee gets shares and as they pay down the debt over the next 5 to 10 years the value of the shares go up dramatically. Bob gets all the benefits of capitalism. The workers get the means of production. ESOPs get some tax advantages.

    ESOPs also tend to outperform their market. Turns out employees perform better when they can personally benefit in a direct way from the outcome of their labor.

    With all that stated it isn't what a communist would want. It still has to exist and operate under the rules of the US market. If an ESOP needs to hire a manager or director they're going to need a competitive compensation package. And you'll still end up with managers makeing 2 or 3 times what their workers do and depending how the stock rules are set up they may get more stock.

    TLDR: What you're asking about exists. I think it works great. I wouldn't consider it something that would appeal to a communist as a social goal.

  • Everyone here seems to be talking about co-ops... And I'm really confused by the conversation in this thread, alas,

    I worked for some years for a manufacturing company that was 100% employee owned. We were a multinational manufacturer for: wire and cable, aerospace, and medical. The company began around 1972, started the EO process in the early 90's becoming 100% employee owned by 2000.

    The [National Center for Employee Ownership] (nceo.org) is a good resource for businesses looking at employee ownership. The most common ESOPs are manufacturing companies in the states last I heard at one of the nceo conferences.

    The obstacles that I see, is that most companies have Investors. Obviously we all know what the investors want as they own the stock. It takes a generous leadership/company founder to sell their stock to the company for employee ownership. It's a long process with lawyers and other legal hurdles. Not impossible, but finding generosity in the white collar business class, especially today, is not common it seems. You must have initial generosity and care for your employees from the initial owners. They decide to go employee owned or not. They either see the investment EO is, or they keep greedy.

    The founder of the EO I worked for sold his last stock to the company for the same price he sold his first stock (which in the ten-ish years it took to get to 100% EO, raised considerably).

    Profit sharing is dope. Basically we all got an extra large paycheck every quarter. This company I worked for paid $3-$4 more per hour to start than any other manufacturing company in the area, and bennies began the day you were hired. They literally held financial literacy classes for all employees, to better understand our financial reports, as the company was super transparent. They believed that the best ideas come from the ones running the machines, and the founder often could be found sweeping floors of his shops to better know his employees and their struggles. In 2019, the company stock was valued at over $6K a share.

    The original owner passed away, then covid hit, (I left) then the leadership changed to new people who never met the founder. It's gone down hill since. Im to be paid out this year, and the stock is half was it was when I left. I still carry a card with the original founders mission and values listed for the company. That card is no longer what they follow. It's been sad to see.

    However, I still believe Employee Ownership is a solid pathway to restoring the middle class.

    Folks who began in the 90s were retiring after 25 years with the company with $1-$2 million dollars in their esop accounts alone. I know what a Roth IRA is, what it means to diversify, and what dividends are all because of this company's financial literacy classes.

    It also is possible a company becomes too big to support the EO model. This company was hitting that point around the time I left, they told us "we're hiring lawyers to make sure that it doesn't happen", but as I've watched the stock price drop year over year, yeah bet-

  • Thats more syndicalist in nature, also the very idea is absurd. Why on earth would you willingly play the capitalist game with the capitalist rules when the entire system is rigged against the workers? What can possibly be gained? The way I see it if organizations like the IWW started making co-ops then the FBI would make sure they fail.

    • the FBI would make sure they fail.

      This is kind of the point. If any of these things remotely threatened the capitalist status quo, they would be obliterated by the CIA, etc.

  • I think worker cooperatives are sometimes bashed too much but worker cooperatives are fundamentally a lower petty-bourgeois form of organizing. Cooperatives can only be an ally to the movement of the proletariat and not a driving force. That said, they might have minor use.

    I have been thinking about how to sublate the lower petty-bourgeoisie into the movement of the proletariat. I think it would be cool for a bunch of workers in a worker's state to make a worker cooperative as a startup, make it big and then sell the cooperative off to the worker's state. As long as the land and the banks are owned by the state anyway, the worker cooperative would be financed and largely owned by the people indirectly anyhow.

    But in terms of pre-revolution, worker cooperatives may help educate the workers who are part of it, and cooperatives can help ease the transition of class suicide for petty-bourgeois and labor aristocracy class traitors.

    There's a bit of a trouble for educating the workers compared to unions due to the class situation and nature of ownership. But I think it would be less harmful for a small business owner to create a cooperative than to go out of business during an economic bust and with unexpected declassing become a reactionary blaming their debt on minorities.

    I think the trouble is where to focus the limited time and effort of the communists. It's not that cooperatives are bad necessarily, it's just that it's more helpful and important to focus elsewhere.

    I do think some communists get weird about strata other than the proles proper such as the reserve pool of labor, lower petty bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy. The foundation of the communist movement should be the proletariat but these other strata are not inherent enemies. There's not a fundamental antagonism of exploiter and exploited here.

  • The hell of capitalism is the firm itself, not the fact that the firm has a boss.

    The forces of the market and of capital do not go away just because the workers own the company. In worker-owned cooperatives, the workers exploit themselves, because the business still needs to grow. They simply carry out the logic of the capitalist themselves on themselves, using their surplus value to expand the business's capital, and paying for their own labour-power reproduction. i.e., the workers all simply become petit-bourgeois.

    There are extant organisations (some political parties, some NGOs) that push for more workers' cooperatives, and none of them are communist nor call themselves communist. If you believe in a cooperative-based economy, you are not a communist. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just a fact, the same as if you want, for instance, the current US economic system, you are not a communist. You can advocate for coops but you would fare much better in that political project if you didn't try to put it under the banner of something it's not, and something far more controversial than just "worker coops are good" anyway.

  • I think communists and socialists and anarchosts and broadly leftists do argue for cooperatives and workplace democratisation.

    The reason they maybe don't do it enough is because those businesses in our present environment will get beaten by exploitation mostly.

    Co-operatives by nature will sacrifice profit for employee conditions because they have more stakeholders (and shareholders) to be accountable to. Lower wages through exploitation will tend to reduce costs and allow the capitalist businesses to drop prices, and outcompete opponents and secure more investment capital due to higher market penetration, which will allow them to invest in their business, incl. Marketing and product development, and outcompete the more fair sustainable business, until they corner the market and can jack up.the prices and bleed consumers dry and push for laws/lack thereof to exploit employees and cut costs further.

    • Cooperatives tend to be more stable than traditional firms, but they are both harder to start, and aren't Communist. OP is confusing worker-owned private property with the abolition of Private Property, Communists don't focus on worker cooperatives because cooperatives retain petite bourgeois class relations.

      Rather than creating a society run by and for all collectively, cooperatives are a less exploitative but still competition and profit-driven form of private business. Communists wish to move beyond such a format, even if we side with cooperatives over traditional firms when available.

    • I don't agree with this. Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an 'inefficency' than treating employees fairly. Well treated employees provide a benefit to the company while shareholders purely remove resources.

      I have no data to back up my claim, just logic, so I could very well be wrong.

    • I saw it happen with Walmart, Ace Hardware, Pizza Hut, Lowe's/Home Depot. We used to have independent supermarkets too, who set their own prices based on local conditions. I live in an area where the supermarket in a nearby town (it's really a village) often has lower prices on produce and meats. The big national brands cost more, and this store doesn't get bulk discounts like Walmart, HT, and Kroger! The problem is I still have to go a few towns over to get decent coffee because Folgers, Maxwell House and Staryuck isn't it, so when I get a ride, I have to buy extra and freeze it. The local independent store doesn't have as good starting pay or benefits, though, but without their store, many of our older population would be in serious trouble. An elderly man kept me for some time in the meat department of our chain store because he said he was ashamed to be looking at low quality beef at those prices, when he used to farm and hunt his own. Years of farming to feed our country left him with hands that don't work the way they used too. I didn't buy their overpriced products, and felt bad for someone who destroyed their body for people who largely don't even consider that nature gives us her body and blood for us to eat and drink, and from showing, weeding, irrigating, harvesting, processing, packaging, shipping, stocking, dusting, sweeping, waxing, checking, the individuals who suffer and destroy their bodies to get it to the table.

      I was in another independently owned grocery a few towns over by happenstance to pick up a few things while accessible. In less than 15 minutes, because I didn't know where items were and asked, three different employees told me to wait, they'd be right back. I guessed they were asking or making sure. Each returned with the specific item I wanted, to save me steps! Again, every item but one was less expensive than the chains, and I am guessing they can't compete with chain grocery starting pay, either.

      Interestingly enough, the employees do get a small profit sharing incentive.

  • Read Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, especially the section on Owenism.

  • The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class.

    No, the overarching goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless and moneyless society.

    Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.

    No. At best, you could say that coops are a proto-socialist element within a capitalist society. Firstly, I am using the term "socialist" as separate from "communist" here, and secondly, a proto-socialist element is a very different thing from an enclave of socialism within a capitalist world.

    The simple problem is that capital is capital. A capital is a self-reproducing social relation that competes with other capitals in a sort of evolution by natural/sexual/artificial selection on the markets. The problem is capital itself, and the solution is to destroy capital. Creating a new type of capital that is less destructive, or one that operates under less destructive modes is fine for countries where development has not reached to the point that they can directly gun towards communism. However, for advanced, and especially late-stage capitalist economies, the task is not to pursue further development of market forces, because market forces have already matured. The task is to eliminate market forces (although this may take time).

    Coops may give a more equal distribution of wealth amongst the workers, but the aim of the communists is to abolish wealth, because the very meaning of wealth is that a private individual gets to command the labor of others. That is the fundamental social relation that money embodies and facilitates. The only way to remove the power to exploit other people's labor is to remove the ability to command labor. But if you cannot command labor, then money becomes worthless and your ownership of the coop doesn't mean anything.

    Are organizations focusing on this and I just don’t know about it?

    Yes. A quick google search shows examples such as the international labor organisation

    If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?

    Part of the fundamental problem is just that the bourgeois class is not stupid. They want exploitable workers and profits. If you deprive them of that, prepare to face their wrath as they abandon all pretenses of human rights or fairness or the sanctity of markets.

  • In terms of communism, as dreamt up by Marx and Engels, you can only turn a completely capitalist economy into a communist one. This has never been achieved, shortcuts have been taken. All communist states in existence have either turned authoritarian or to dust. So in my view, there aren't many communist movements left in the world. They may use the word but either M&E wouldn't like them or they don't really have a lot of support behind them. No support, no money. Capitalists have a lot of money. People with a lot of money tend to have the ear of their leaders. If an investor is interested it'll be real hard to go for an employee-owned model (excluding models with free publicly traded shares). If investors are not interested, the business may be failing and employee ownership is the last hurrah before the end. Capitalism tends to come up on top.

    • This is generally wrong. Marx and Engels believed Capitalism itself prepares the foundations for Socialism, but not that revolution had to wait for Capitalism to fully develop to succeed. Socialist governments can oversee economies and build towards Communism without needing to be fully developed Capitalist states before the revolution. As a result, Marx and Engels would support historical Communist movements like Cuba, the USSR, PRC, etc, especially if they had lived to see Capitalism turn to Imperialism, shifting revolutionary pressure from the most developed countries to the most Imperialized countries.

153 comments