Chlorophyll

So, since moving to Madison, I've gotten involved in more co-ops than I would have ever thought possible. My girlfriend and I get most of our food from a coop. She gets her health care from a co-op, which we're trying to get me into. We're looking at moving to co-housing this summer. And now I'm working part-time for a web design co-op.

This is amazingly good news to me, because I see four levels of economic models. From least to most responsible/fair, they are:

4. The corporate model. Pure extraction. All things, and all people, are seen through the filter of the bottom line. The financial wealth of a few, many of whom contribute no actual labor to the enterprise, overrides the conditions of workers, the environment, and the surrounding community. Labor means nothing to capital.

3. Some small businesses, where the boss is friendly and attentive to workers, and even listens to the concerns of community members. Labor has implicit respect from capital.

2. Union shops. It's a confrontational atmosphere, but at least it's a confrontation on an even playing field. I strongly prefer unions that are democratically run, but I'd like to see them go beyond that to actually be self-critical not only in internal matters, but in the workplace itself as well. I've seen ads that say that union goods are better-made than non-union, but I wish I was seeing a lot more. Anyway, in this model, labor gets explicit respect from capital.

1. Cooperatives. The users of the outfit own it, whether that means the consumers or the workers. All significant decisions are made among the members. A coop could not abuse the community, because it is made up of the community. It could not abuse the workers, because the workers have some or all of the say in how it runs. Abusing the environment is not as clear-cut, but certainly more responsible voices can make themselves heard - and indeed, co-ops are consistently more conscientious than other businesses. Labor is capital.

Looking at these makes me wonder... here in the so-called "First World," we're taught that political democracy is a good thing, but economic democracy is a bad thing. It's not phrased that way, of course, but we're told that the US and other friendly nations are "capitalist democracies." That's like saying we're a "secular theocracy."

Every other year, we're encouraged - practically begged - to participate in the trappings of electoral democracy we have here in the US. But what chance does that have against our indoctrination, day in and day out, that we have no say in our workplace, which has a far more immediate effect on our lives? Our mental model is that there are those "above" us, who hand down dictates that may or may not make sense, and the most we can hope for is to stay on their good side. If we live this medieval model all day every day, is it any surprise that a lot of folks aren't inspired to break with it to vote? They don't think they could - or maybe even should - have an influence over the wider world.

History shows that all the propoganda in the world can't overcome people's experience. Get-out-the-vote efforts might cause a measurable rise, even enough to tip the balance one way or the other, but can't convince the other 50% of the population to vote. Only daily practice in democracy - not just voting, but engaging each other and deliberating - can create a context to do that.

But there's more to this. The more people participate in their workplaces and communities, the healthier and more productive they will be. That is to say, there will be less need for the federal government to take care of us, because we'll be taking care of ourselves. Over time, that will apply to state government, and eventually even th municipal level. But this can only happen to the extent that we empower ourselves. No one will do this for us - no one wants us empowered. We must take responsibility for our own liberation. And the best way to do that is in the workplace, through worker ownership and management.