There is nothing illegal about a private company being owned by its workers. Which means the state has nothing to do with it. Cooperatives already exist. They just aren’t going to be the kinds of companies you see on the cover of Forbes. But no one is coming to shut them down, either.
I’m speaking in a much broader sense. Look at it this way - if the state decided to have literally nothing to do with a private company owned by the workers, that means that the state would not be involved in contract enforcement for any deals made by said company. So when they pay Big Pots Inc for some plant pots, and never get the promised product, there would be no form of mediation available to force delivery of the goods according to the agreed-upon contract. And the mediation that the state provides is backed up by the implicit threat of force - “If you violate this contract, we will take resources from you; and if you resist the seizure, we will use force to complete the seizure and restrain you for as long as we deem fit.”
Workers’ co-ops are viable because past generations of workers were willing to get unruly to have their interests recognized and protected by by the state.
My point is not that workers’ co-ops aren’t a good idea. They’re great! They’re fantastic, literal praxis. My point is only that it’s not as ‘violence-free’ as it’s being portrayed here. Establishing a workers’ co-op is viable because the state is prepared, at this moment in time, to employ force in a somewhat consistent manner (on this particular matter of contract enforcement, at least, and nominally, considering the greater ability of the wealthy to hire legal experts and have drawn-out legal fights) in defense of workers interests in the same vein as in defense of the interests of capital. But without that, if the state decides otherwise, de jure or de facto, then the violence which has been supporting the existence of the co-op is gone.
There’s no sustainable non-violent option. There’s no option that, if there’s pushback from capital, will not result in people being killed by our side. Like I said, that doesn’t mean that immediate escalation to civil war is wise or moral. But you can’t view it as ‘violent vs. non-violent’ without ignoring everything that goes on behind the curtains.
There is nothing illegal about a private company being owned by its workers. Which means the state has nothing to do with it. Cooperatives already exist. They just aren’t going to be the kinds of companies you see on the cover of Forbes. But no one is coming to shut them down, either.
I’m speaking in a much broader sense. Look at it this way - if the state decided to have literally nothing to do with a private company owned by the workers, that means that the state would not be involved in contract enforcement for any deals made by said company. So when they pay Big Pots Inc for some plant pots, and never get the promised product, there would be no form of mediation available to force delivery of the goods according to the agreed-upon contract. And the mediation that the state provides is backed up by the implicit threat of force - “If you violate this contract, we will take resources from you; and if you resist the seizure, we will use force to complete the seizure and restrain you for as long as we deem fit.”
Workers’ co-ops are viable because past generations of workers were willing to get unruly to have their interests recognized and protected by by the state.
My point is not that workers’ co-ops aren’t a good idea. They’re great! They’re fantastic, literal praxis. My point is only that it’s not as ‘violence-free’ as it’s being portrayed here. Establishing a workers’ co-op is viable because the state is prepared, at this moment in time, to employ force in a somewhat consistent manner (on this particular matter of contract enforcement, at least, and nominally, considering the greater ability of the wealthy to hire legal experts and have drawn-out legal fights) in defense of workers interests in the same vein as in defense of the interests of capital. But without that, if the state decides otherwise, de jure or de facto, then the violence which has been supporting the existence of the co-op is gone.
There’s no sustainable non-violent option. There’s no option that, if there’s pushback from capital, will not result in people being killed by our side. Like I said, that doesn’t mean that immediate escalation to civil war is wise or moral. But you can’t view it as ‘violent vs. non-violent’ without ignoring everything that goes on behind the curtains.