> There is nothing inherently ethical about co-op owned organizations nor anything inherently unethical about privately owned organizations.
I disagree. Co-ops are inherently democratic. Privately owned business is inherently anti-democratic. The difference only becomes starker as the scale increases. That alone makes it seem more ethical to me, before you even get to examining the way democratic organizations obviously do a better job at checking any single person's power than rule by one, as well as other effects.
Why does it seem more ethical for the organization that makes your daily bread to be democratic?
I have no doubt that there are people who wish to attend meetings to vote and argue about minutia involves in the running of bakeries and other organizations. But just because people exist does not mean that the most ethical organization is one that gives them the most opportunity to exercise their particular interest in attending meetings.
The vast majority of people do not want every organization their lives to run like a mini democracy. Not only is this not necessarily more ethical than other alternatives, but it is definitely less efficient and that matters when it comes to the supply of material goods. I don’t want a vote on whether or not my bakery puts sesame seeds on the bread. I just want to buy a loaf of bread thanks.
Keep in mind that there are different forms of co-ops. Most generally, worker-owned, customer-owned, and producer-owned.
Producer co-ops are often hiding in plain sight, and may not match preconceived views of crunchy-hippy businesses. For a long time, Visa International (the credit card company) was a producer co-op of member banks (it began trading publicly in 2008). Its major shareholders remain banks and investment companies.
Producer co-ops are also common in agriculture and food, as well as some media / creative fields. Associated Press, Blue Diamond (almonds/nuts), Cabot Creamery, Land O'Lakes, Welch's, and Sunkist are all co-ops, largely producer-owned AFAIR.
Does adding democracy automatically increase ethical value?
Suppose a group of racists form a coffee co-op dedicated to some silliness like "keeping the brown away from your brown". Or a group of homophobes that votes that their new t-shirt line should all riff on "killing fags protects families".
Are those companies more ethical than a privately owned org that just wants any capable worker and any customer with currency?
Closed democracies can and do make all sorts of evil decisions all of the time.
>the way democratic organizations obviously do a better job at checking any single person's power
I don't think that's a clear victory for ethical behavior. A sufficiently motivated democracy (as above) could easily use such a mechanism to check the single ethical person's power from "ruining their vision" by suggesting something so asinine (in their opinion) as compassion or accessibility.
totally. we can badger people to buy from better companies but that seems so tough. better to just make it easier for people to buy from better companies :)
There is nothing inherently ethical about co-op owned organizations nor anything inherently unethical about privately owned organizations.
The party vanguard of the worker co-op is exactly as capable of selfish or abusive behaviour as the private owner.
> There is nothing inherently ethical about co-op owned organizations nor anything inherently unethical about privately owned organizations.
I disagree. Co-ops are inherently democratic. Privately owned business is inherently anti-democratic. The difference only becomes starker as the scale increases. That alone makes it seem more ethical to me, before you even get to examining the way democratic organizations obviously do a better job at checking any single person's power than rule by one, as well as other effects.
Why does it seem more ethical for the organization that makes your daily bread to be democratic?
I have no doubt that there are people who wish to attend meetings to vote and argue about minutia involves in the running of bakeries and other organizations. But just because people exist does not mean that the most ethical organization is one that gives them the most opportunity to exercise their particular interest in attending meetings.
The vast majority of people do not want every organization their lives to run like a mini democracy. Not only is this not necessarily more ethical than other alternatives, but it is definitely less efficient and that matters when it comes to the supply of material goods. I don’t want a vote on whether or not my bakery puts sesame seeds on the bread. I just want to buy a loaf of bread thanks.
4 replies →
Keep in mind that there are different forms of co-ops. Most generally, worker-owned, customer-owned, and producer-owned.
Producer co-ops are often hiding in plain sight, and may not match preconceived views of crunchy-hippy businesses. For a long time, Visa International (the credit card company) was a producer co-op of member banks (it began trading publicly in 2008). Its major shareholders remain banks and investment companies.
Producer co-ops are also common in agriculture and food, as well as some media / creative fields. Associated Press, Blue Diamond (almonds/nuts), Cabot Creamery, Land O'Lakes, Welch's, and Sunkist are all co-ops, largely producer-owned AFAIR.
Does adding democracy automatically increase ethical value?
Suppose a group of racists form a coffee co-op dedicated to some silliness like "keeping the brown away from your brown". Or a group of homophobes that votes that their new t-shirt line should all riff on "killing fags protects families".
Are those companies more ethical than a privately owned org that just wants any capable worker and any customer with currency?
Closed democracies can and do make all sorts of evil decisions all of the time.
>the way democratic organizations obviously do a better job at checking any single person's power
I don't think that's a clear victory for ethical behavior. A sufficiently motivated democracy (as above) could easily use such a mechanism to check the single ethical person's power from "ruining their vision" by suggesting something so asinine (in their opinion) as compassion or accessibility.
1 reply →
totally. we can badger people to buy from better companies but that seems so tough. better to just make it easier for people to buy from better companies :)
Consumption itself is unethical.