The Workers' Paradise

December 28, 2009

The Worker Coop User Principles and The Mondragon Experience

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 8:05 am

The US Department of Agriculture identifies the first three principles of the identity statement as the “user principles.’ In US parlance, this means that the users of a cooperative’s services benefit from the cooperative’s activities, the users of a cooperative own the cooperative and the users of cooperative control the activities of the cooperative.

However, in a worker co-operative, the users of the cooperative services generally do not own or control the cooperative. Should worker cooperatives have their own set of principles unique to the experience of worker ownership? The Mondragon Cooperative has developed a set of ten principles that it uses to guide its collective actions. The 10 Principles of Mondragon overlap to some extent with the Identity Statement:

Mondragon Coop Identity

1. Open Admission                                    Voluntary and Open Membership

2. Democratic Organization                    Member Democratic Control

3. Sovereignty of Labor

4. The Instrumental and Autonomy and Independence

Subordinate Nature of Capital

5. Participatory Management                   Member Economic Participation

6. Payment Solidarity

7. Intercooperation                                     Cooperation Among Cooperatives

8. Social Transformation                           Concern for Community

9. Universality

10. Education                                                Education, Training and Information

In considering this series, I initially saw the three principles of Sovereignty of Labor, Subordination of Capital and Payment Solidarity as the three that separated from the Identity Statement. However, it is clear that the Subordination of Capital directly relates to Autonomy and Independence. Yet, this principle also has a special nuance for worker cooperatives. Likewise, the role of Universality is a direct expression of the value of solidarity. It is not simply Concern for Community or Cooperation Among Cooperatives. It speaks directly to the need for worker cooperatives to support all movements that seek dignity for workers. This makes a substantial break from the principles and other cooperative sectors that may not support labor movements and may even be antagonistic to labor unions.

Over the next four weeks, I will detour from the Identity Statement of the ICA to consider the importance of the four Mondragon principles in order: Sovereignty of Labor, The Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Payment Solidarity and Universality. For background information, I will be quoting heavily from The Mondragon Cooperative Experience by Jose Maria Ormaechea (January, 1993). Sr. Ormaechea is the “O” of ULGOR Cooperative, the first cooperative of the Mondragon Experience and the name was dervived from the initials of the five original members (it is known as FAGOR today). He was one of the first students of Don Jose Maria Arizmendiertta. He served as Managing Director of the Caja Laboral Popular (today, the Caja Popular) from 1960-1988. He also served at Director of Otalora, the management training facility and publisher of this book.

A Few Words About Mondragon

The principles of Mondragon are significant—in addition to acknowledging the history of the cooperative movement, they also expand upon the ideals of cooperation by addressing the role of labor. This was a very important issue for Arizmendiaretta. He believed in the sanctity of work and education. Through these two arenas, the human spirit could be elevated and all of society would benefit.

Mondragon was the pearl to come out of the fascist experiments of the 20th Century. Don Jose was in prison awaiting execution when the Pope decided that Franco had to quit killing priests. He was sent to the backwater industrial village of Mondragon instead of Bilbao to shut him up and ensure that his radical views would not gain traction. Mondragon succeeded in part because of some unique issues:

Communists in the South and the Anarchists of Barcelona had regrouped. Franco’s economic policies had failed even by his standards. It was easy for Franco’s people to see the Mondragon experiment as one of entrepreneurialism, not revolution.

Nevertheless, for the first two decades of Mondragon, the government was fascist and people had to be careful. They were harassed and had the deck stacked against them. The bank and social security systems were created because they were not allowed access to finances and health care otherwise. Add to that the role of the ETA and the Basque desire for independence (or at least to be left alone) and one sees a unique culture that produced Mondragon and has a lot to do with their decision making process.

The workers of Mondragon have “built the road as they traveled.” They haven’t always made the decisions that I would have made (sitting in my condo in Madison, WI instead of Basque Country), but those decisions were theirs to make.I have learned, however, that even when a decision is made, that may only be the beginning of the discussion. As with all of our co-operatives, sometimes decisions get made in order to survive to a day that a real fix can be made that will be more consistent with the principles.

I like that Mondragon refers to itself as an “experience.” I think that all of our worker co-operatives should adopt that attitude. We are an experience of our culture, society, place in history, and the good and bad tendencies of our collective memberships. The experience of cooperation offers us metamorphosis that will highlight our better natures. It is a process and a journey. We will occasionally stray from the correct path as a means of survival (or ignorance), but if our diversion will allow us the opportunity to correct ourselves in the future, we should be happy for another day.

That is my basic take on Mondragon. We have a lot to learn from them. They can learn some things from us too. However, we must always be cognizant of the principles that bind us. We must understand that we are only human and will make mistakes. We should embrace forgiveness and understanding of the human condition. There are as many ways to “co-operate” as there are personalities. We should be willing to honor our differences as much as our similarities, but always along the lines of the principles and values of the cooperative identity.

December 23, 2009

Dear Readers:

Filed under: Site News — John McNamara @ 4:50 pm

I am sorry for missing my Monday Morning Post this week. I ran out of time. Fortunately, Fred Schepartz stepped into the void and provide three intriguing posts. I will start up again next Monday with the Identity series and follow that up with a review of 2009 and a plan for 2010.

I do want to take a moment to thank you for reading and spreading the word. At last count, I have readers in over 40 countries. I have enjoyed meeting some of you on Facebook and in person at the conferences!

John

December 19, 2009

The Night I Was A Movie Star—Almost

Filed under: Society — Tags: , , — Fred Schepartz @ 6:30 pm

Okay, I admit it. By the beginning of last summer, I was starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding my role in Michael Moore’s new film. The image of me, sitting behind the wheel of my taxicab, would be on the film’s marquee. Something I said on camera would be the movie’s tagline. And suddenly, not only would I be a movie star, but my novel, Vampire Cabbie, would shoot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.

More about all of this later.

But yes, it is absolutely true. I almost co-starred in Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story. Moore wanted to feature worker cooperatives as an antidote to Capitalism. Apparently, Moore had read about Union Cab in Jim Hightower’s recent book, Swim Against The Current, which included a chapter about the worker-owned-and-operated cooperative cab company where I have worked for the past twenty-one years.

There was a lot of talk back and forth between my people and Moore’s people, but finally it was decided that an independent film production crew would come to Madison in early April and would shoot footage and conduct interviews at Union Cab and Isthmus Engineering.

About two weeks before the shoot, I was running a fare when my cell phone rang. I fished the phone out of my hip pocket. My cell phone seldom rings, so when it does, I answer it promptly, assuming that either someone died or that a tsunami has just engulfed most of California.

The call was from John McNamara. John’s my best friend. He’s also our Marketing Manager. Part of his job is handling customer complaints. When I heard his voice on the other end, I immediately thought, “What did I do?”

But no, that was not why John called. Instead, he called to ask me if I would be interesting in driving the film crew around town.

“Would I actually be on camera?” I asked.

“Absolutely,” John replied.

I almost drove the cab off the road. (Well, not really, but that sounds good.)

I was shocked and so, so excited. I immediately shared the news with my passenger, a hip, thirty-something woman who was getting her black-and-white former police car worked on. She thought it was way cool. So did I.

But poor John. He had been the one who had been contacted by Basel Hamdan, the film crew’s producer. He and Basel had been discussing the possibility of Union Cab being included in the movie for a few months. Finally, he got the green light from Basel, but the two days when they would be in town, John would be out of town, visiting his mother in Toledo. John was none too pleased.

But I was excited beyond belief. I told everybody I knew. I’d stop strangers on the street and tell them as well. I was going to be in a Michael Moore movie! I’d be one of the good guys in a Michael Moore movie!

And I could talk about my novel, Vampire Cabbie, on camera. If the final cut included footage of me, talking about my novel, Vampire Cabbie, I would sell lots and lots of books.

The only problem was the anticipation. That may have been the longest week and a half of my life, but I was excited. Frankly, I was not particularly nervous about being filmed, let alone being filmed by Moore’s film crew. The fact that Moore is well known for his in-your-face style of interviewing did not worry me in the least. After all, I was one of the good guys.

Mainly, I wanted to be in the movie, so I wanted to do a good job. It occurred to me that teaching myself to speak in sound bites would maximize my chances of making the final cut. No, I did not sit down and write scripts for myself, but I did put a great deal of thought into what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it.

Of course, I wanted to talk about my novel, Vampire Cabbie, but I wanted to discuss it in the greater context of how Union Cab, being the special workplace that it is, helped make it possible for me to write the book and is a haven for artists of all kinds. I wanted to talk about the importance of Union Cab providing jobs at a living wage in a humane work environment. And I wanted to talk about how Union Cab is a shining example of what I like to call Neo-Syndicalism.

I thought a great deal about what I actually wanted to say, and I actually practiced my “lines,” struggling to be as concise as possible.

I was ready, but then they threw me a curveball. The day before the shoot, Basel sent me an e-mail:

Hi Fred,

Thanks for the info – very helpful. We’re looking forward to tomorrow night’s shoot.

There are a few things we are looking to accomplish—first, we’d like buildings, restaurants or sights that are unique to Madison. Any landmarks or anything …

Also, and there are some things that we’d like to accomplish cinematically—certain visuals and looks that we’d like to capture that we have been thinking about. We can get into more detail about this tomorrow as this is for our Director of Photography to coordinate, but if you know of any places that have smoke—sewers or building that have smoke coming out of them, it would be helpful to what we are trying to do.

We’ll be in touch tomorrow …

All the best,
Basel

As Basel later explained, they were looking for a Taxi Driver visual motif. Okay, I was willing to do what I could, but understand: Travis Bickle is a bit of a sore subject with any self-respecting taxi driver. Surely, Michael Moore wasn’t going to all this trouble just to make fun of us?

Still, I wanted to be helpful. I got up early that morning and perused the Internet, looking for smoke or steam. I know that the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus has a vast network of steam tunnels, but where might the steam be released? I could not find any answers, but I did find a website largely dedicated to Tunnel Bob, a local character well known for traveling the campus steam tunnels.

Anybody who has lived in Madison for a long time knows who Tunnel Bob is. His appearance is quite distinctive. He is extremely tall and lanky, with long arms, legs and a rather long neck. He is also chronically mentally ill.

Maybe Tunnel Bob could tell me where to find smoke or steam. But how could I find Tunnel Bob?

I did make a few phone calls to places like the UW Physical Plant, but no luck. Well, I tried.

Still, I was excited. I went into work early and selected the newest cab I could find then took it to the carwash. I couldn’t pick up the film crew in a dirty cab.

Ah, but the waiting, the waiting. Basel had told me they’d need me to pick them up around seven PM, but when the appointed time arrived, I did not hear from them. Minutes hung like hours, but still no word, which presented a problem in terms of doing my job and making money. The phone call could come any second! I had to be nearby and not engaged in a long call when they were ready for me.

Finally, Basel called. They were still at Isthmus Engineering. They were running a bit late.

Finally, at around ten Basel called to tell me they were just about ready for me and that I should meet them at their hotel, the venerable Inn on the Park, in about a half hour.

Perfect. I was dropping off on the near Westside, just ten minutes from the Capitol Square. That gave me plenty of time to finish my call and more importantly, go to the bathroom. I was not sure when I would get another chance to relieve myself.

The Open Pantry near the west end of the campus was a mere half-mile from where I dropped off my last passenger. When I emerged from the bathroom, I had a big surprise. Not just a surprise, but Kismet!

Sitting on a stool in the small dining area in the Open Pantry was none other than Tunnel Bob! I could not believe my good fortune.

But there was just one problem. Asking someone who is chronically mentally ill a straight question and getting a straight answer is not as easy as one would think. The question: where might I find smoke or steam? I had to ask him three times before I he told me there just wasn’t any smoke or steam to be had. As I feared, it being April and fairly warm, it just was not likely. January or February, that’s a different story.

Oh, well. I tried. I made every effort.

I arrived at the Inn on the Park shortly after the film crew. Right away, they struck me as very nice. Despite the fact that it already had been a long day for them, they were excited and ready to go, including the intrepid cinematographer who had flown in on a red-eye the night before from Europe. He pretty much was running on little more than adrenalin, having not really slept the night before.

The crew quickly went to work setting up the shoot, while Basel and I chatted. I sadly told him there was no smoke or steam to be had, though I did tell him our head mechanic could make smoke if he wanted. Basel shook his head. “That’s okay,” he said.

He asked me about prominent landmarks and views. I told him about Bascom Hill, State Street, the Capitol Square and a curious optical illusion on the southside of town where, when you pull onto this one street (O’Sheridan off Lakeside), the Capitol looms large at the end on the horizon, but as you move closer, it shrinks.

“Cool,” Basel said.

We talked about the Taxi Driver motif. I remembered a story John McNamara had told me several years ago. We used to have a driver named Steve Fleischman. He was very intelligent, but a bit unbalanced. His nickname was Fleshdog.

As John told me, it was election night 1986, the horrible night when Tommy Thompson, a conservative, small-town Republican, whose nickname from his years in the state assembly was Dr. No, defeated amiable Democrat incumbent Tony Earl.

Apparently, Steve had this cab-load of College Republicans. It was their big night, so they were all drunk and excited about Thompson’s unexpected win.

“Aren’t you excited about our new governor?” one of them asked Steve.

In classic Fleshdog fashion, Steve replied, “You know, I don’t know much about politics. All I know is we need a good hard rain to wash the scum off the streets.”

The passengers started freaking out. Steve quickly reassured them, “It’s just a movie. I was just quoting from a movie.”

Basel liked the story.

“It’s election night, you know,” I said. I repeated Fleshdog’s line.

Basel patted me on the shoulder. “Save it for the filming,” he said.

The crew quickly got to work prepping for the shoot. The sound person slipped a wireless microphone under my black leather biker jacket though the exact placement was a bit delicate. It took a little while to figure out how to set up the mike so it would not pick up took much rustling.

They mounted a camera on the outside of the cab. They put gels on some of the windows to cut down on glare. They did test shots with the hand-held camera inside the cab.

I was quite impressed with the attention to detail. Frankly, I never thought of Michael Moore movies as visually strong. His films don’t look bad, but I’ve never thought they look exceptional. I quickly learned that there’s a great deal of hard work that goes into making the movies look as good and sound as good as they do. It’s not like one can just go out and buy a digital camcorder and shoot a movie like it’s nothing at all. The crew worked hard to make it look easy.

And like I said, the cinematographer was particularly intrepid. At one point, we were driving down State Street, he opened the window and shot footage with his entire torso out the window, Basel hanging on to his belt for dear life, a terrified expression on his face. I thought this only happened in the movies.

Later when we were just about done, I realized I had not shown them the optical illusion of the shrinking Capitol. I told the cinematographer. He was ready to jump back in the cab and grab the shot, but Basel pulled in the reins, claiming the guy needed to finally get some sleep. I’m not sure, but I think Basel had simply had enough.

We were ready. The crew packed into my cab, four of them. The rest followed in a minivan. Normally, four people in my cab is a bit crowded, but with Basel, the sound person, the cinematographer and one other person, it was utterly cramped. Of course, the cinematographer bounced back and forth between my cab and their minivan.

They wanted landmarks. They wanted stunning visuals. Right away, with the minivan following close behind, I nosed the cab up the side of Bascom Hill, the glacial blister that is the epicenter of the UW campus. Atop Bascom Hill sits Bascom Hall, named after John Bascom, the founder of the University. I parked the cab almost right next to the statue of Abraham Lincoln, feeling particularly entitled. As a cab driver, I can drive and park in places where civilians cannot, but with Michael Moore’s film crew in tow, hell, the sky was the limit!

The crew was quite impressed with the view from atop Bascom Hill. There’s a great view of the Capitol, along with a festively lit State Street.

We drove down State Street to the Capitol Square. We drove around the Square and back down State Street. We pretty much drove the circuit for hours, up and around and around and down, turn around and do it all over again.

The cinematographer attempted to recreate one of the more famous shots from Taxi Driver. “Glance toward the rear view mirror,” he said. “Shift your eyes back and forth.”

I tried, but it was hard. Finally, I think we got it.

As we drove, Basel and I talked. I knew I could direct what I said to a large extent. I was wired, so anything I said, they would have and could use, if they chose to do so. Basel interviewed me as well.

“Is the co-op cab company in your novel like Union Cab?” he asked.

Well, there’s a softball I could launch over the fence. I answered yes and discussed Union Cab’s structure.

He asked if Union Cab offers health insurance. John had warned us that they were likely to ask about that, given Moore’s interest in health-care reform. No problem, Union Cab does have a health plan. It’s a good health plan, but it’s too expensive—but that’s not Union Cab’s fault; that’s the fault of our broken health care system.

That was really the only thing approaching a gotcha question. Overall, I felt like they all treated me with a great deal of respect. They didn’t act like it was weird that a cab driver wrote a book about a blood-sucking cab driver.

Interestingly, I found out later that the interviews done the next day were not quite so respectful. Karl Schulte, our general manager, felt downright harassed. When discussing the fact that Karl’s wage is only about four times as high as the lowest-paid employee, Basel asked, “What are you, some kind of hippie?”

Rebecca Kemble, who drove them around the next day, also said she felt a bit badgered, but again, I did not feel disrespected in the least.

At other times, Basel said nothing other than helping to direct the shooting. At one point, we stopped at the campus end of State Street. The crew vacated the cab and climbed into the minivan. They wanted to shoot the side of the cab. Basel remained in the cab and told me to drive very slowly but at a steady speed. The minivan drove alongside of me.

We painstakingly drove the length of State Street and turned onto the Capitol Square. Just then, a squad car approached. I promptly pulled over. The minivan pulled over behind me. The square car pulled over in front of me.

Oddly, the officer did not turn on the lights. Basel and I waited for what seemed like forever. The officer did not approach our vehicle.

Feeling like the crew was my responsibility, I broke one of the chief rules when dealing with police during a traffic stop, but I figured that because I was driving a taxi, it would be okay.

Making sure my hands were visible, I got out of my cab and carefully approached the squad car. “I’m with Michael Moore’s film crew,” I said. “We’re shooting a movie.”

“Return to your vehicle!” the officer snapped.

Asshole.

I sheepishly got back in the cab and described the exchange to Basel.

“You didn’t say we were Michael Moore’s film crew, did you?” Basel asked me, a bit annoyed.

“Hey, you didn’t tell me not to.” Then I made some snide remark about the cop not having any African Americans to pull over, referencing the shameful fact that Dane County has the worst per capita discrepancy of incarceration of African Americans of any county in the country. The bitter joke around here is that DWB is way worse than DWI.

A moment later, four more squads showed up. An officer approached the cab.

“I’ll do the talking this time,” Basel said.

“What’s going on here?” the officer asked politely, if not pleasantly.

“We’re an independent film crew, working on a movie,” Basel replied.

“Oh, cool,” the officer, said with a smile. “We were just wondering what was going on and why that minivan was driving the wrong way down the street.”

And then just like that, the squad cars left us to return to business.

“Wow, that guy was really nice,” Basel said. “They’re usually not that nice in New York.”

I growled softly.

We quickly got back to work. We were on one of the streets that spokes off the Capitol when I decided it was time. The Capitol glowed brightly directly in front of us.

“It’s election night,” I said. “The good guys won. The Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice will keep her job. I guess the corporatists won’t be able to buy themselves another seat on the state supreme court, at least not this time.

“But you know, I don’t know much about politics. All I know is what we need is a good hard rain to wash the scum off the streets.”

Out of the corner of my eye, I could see Basel smiling. Cut and print, as they say.

Basel finally called it a night around three in the morning. Damn! It was well past bartime.

As we unpacked, everyone complimented me on my efforts. One member of the crew even asked me if I had acting experience.

Yet all I could think of was the things I didn’t do, what I didn’t say. For some stupid reason, I had forgotten to bring a copy of my novel, Vampire Cabbie, so there was no shot of me in the cab, holding the book for the camera.

I forgot to talk about Neo-Syndicalism. I never got around to talking about all the artists who work at Union Cab and what it is about the workplace that makes that possible. And when Basel asked me about what makes Union Cab a humane workplace, I badly fumbled. This is a question I should have knocked out of the ballpark. It’s an aspect of Union Cab I truly believe in and truly love. And I actually practiced how I would answer that specific question.

Instead, I babbled incoherently about how a bunch of us are Star Trek and Star Wars fans.

“If a driver sees another driver whose headlights are off, even during the day, we tell the dispatcher. This isn’t to get anybody in trouble, but just so the dispatcher can give a friendly reminder for safety reasons.

“This one dispatcher is a huge Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, and Battlestar Galactica fan. One time, I spotted a driver driving without the headlights on. Instead of telling the dispatcher the driver’s headlights were off, I said, cab so-and-so has switched off his targeting computer.

“The dispatcher then says, ‘cab so-and-so, you’ve switched off your targeting computer. Is everything all right?’”

God, I’m such a dork.

Still, I did feel pretty good about the whole thing, but that changed a couple months later when Basel e-mailed the following message:

Hey Fred,

I hope you are doing well.

We are in the middle of editing the film and there is one section where we would like to re-record some audio of you. It relates to the evening that we drove around in the cab with you, and there is a part that we need to make sure that we have crisply and cleanly—it is the Taxi Driver line.

Pearl Lieberman from our crew will happen to be in Madison this weekend, so we thought that it would be a good opportunity to record this bit of audio—it will not take much of your time at all—it is just reciting that line a few times in order for us to make sure we have it.

Let me know what your schedule looks like for Saturday and you and Pearl can arrange a time and place to meet.

Also, I’m having trouble getting through to you by cell phone, so please send me the correct number. Also, I’d like to discuss the line with you, as well.

All the best,
Basel

As Basel would later explain, they loved the “wash the scum off the streets” line, but wanted me to add, the words “Wall Street.”

That weekend, I met Pearl and her boyfriend. It turns out that her boyfriend was none other than Bob Wasserman, a guy I’ve known since the early 1980s. In fact, we worked together in the Rathskeller at Memorial Union, and I represented him in the infamous bagel grievance.

As we sat in my sweltering car with the windows closed, to try to keep out the road sounds, Pearl struggled with the small camera Basel had thrust at her literally as she was getting in her cab on the way to the airport. Fortunately, Bob is one of the best sound people in Madison. The camera’s batteries were dead, and there was a problem with the cord, but Bob was able to jury-rig something.

We recorded several takes as I tried to get the flow right, along with the right inflection of the added words. I knew my motivation. I tried to say the words “Wall Streets” as if they tasted like the nastiest things ever.

And then it was done.

And then my delusions of grandeur began. I would be on the film’s marquee! My words would be the film’s tagline! Michael Moore would show up the Madison opening. There’d be a big party at the Orpheum Theater. We’d all be on stage. I’d be right up there with Michael Moore. I’d step up to the microphone and say a few words about the film’s importance and Union Cab’s importance.

“Say it, say it,” the crowd would yell.

“I don’t know much about politics,” I would say with a wry smile. “All I know is all we need is a good hard rain to wash the scum off the streets—Wall Street.”

And the crowd would go wild.

Alas, it was not to be, but maybe we might be in the bonus footage on the DVD.

And now it’s time for me to go to work at Union Cab, sticking it to the man for thirty years.

The Worker’s Cooperative That Should’ve Been In Michael Moore’s Movie

Filed under: Society — Tags: , , , — Fred Schepartz @ 6:29 pm

A disclaimer: Last April, Michael Moore’s film crew spent a couple of days in Madison, Wisconsin, shooting footage and conducting interviews at two local cooperatives, Isthmus Engineering and Union Cab, where I work. I was the night driver who got to drive the crew around town and show them local landmarks that they could shoot. In addition, I was miked the whole time and was interviewed on camera. The final cut of Capitalism: A Love Story included footage from Isthmus Engineering, but no footage from Union Cab. What follows is, to a certain extent, sour grapes.

* * *

When I found out that Union Cab would not be included in Michael Moore’s new film (okay, let’s be truthful; also when I found out that I would not be in Michael Moore’s new film), my nose was bent a bit out of joint. And it certainly didn’t help matters that in two different interviews following the release of Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore commented that what impressed him about Isthmus Engineering was that they all looked like a bunch of Republicans. He said he was more interested in a worker’s cooperative like that than some “hippy, dippy food co-op.”

In response to Moore’s comment, John Kessler, one of the company’s founders, told Wisconsin State Journal business reporter Jane Burns, “If we are going to be a model, that’s who we’re going to have to appeal to. We can’t just appeal to a bunch of long-haired wackoes.”

Ouch!

Okay, I greatly appreciate that Moore portrayed worker cooperatives as an antidote to Capitalism. However, I think his message about worker cooperatives would have been stronger, and I think the movie would have been better if he had included Union Cab.

Union Cab’s mission statement should tell you all you need to know:

The Mission of Union Cab Cooperative shall be to create jobs at a living wage or better in a safe, humane and democratic environment by providing quality transportation services in the greater Madison area.

The mission statement was recently amended to include environmental concerns as well.

So what does this all mean? In terms of the everyday life of our workers, how do these words translate? And what is the impact of these words on our community and the nation as a whole?

Well, I could talk about the hippy-dippy, longhaired weirdo stuff, but I would rather start with the nuts and bolts of it all, the dollars and cents. As my favorite line from The Right Stuff goes, “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

We pay our drivers by commission. They start at thirty-six percent. Drivers get a one-percent commission bump for every 2500 hours they drive. There currently is no cap on commission. I have twenty-one years of seniority. My commission is fifty-one percent.

The rawest rookie driver should have no trouble earning an hourly way of $10–12, if not more, which is well within what’s considered a living wage in the Madison area. Myself, I’m usually making somewhere in the neighborhood of $18-20 an hour or more if things are really rocking.

That’s good money, and it’s especially significant because my wife left her job in July of last year and is in grad school. She just started a six-month consulting gig, but for the last year and a half, I’ve been the sole breadwinner. It’s been hard and stressful, and we’ve had to really tighten our belts, but we’ve managed to keep food on the table, take care of the pets and make our mortgage payments. I’ve worked extra hours, but nothing too terribly unreasonable.

My ability to support my household is a tribute to Union Cab.

In addition, Union Cab pays stock dividends to all members following a profit-making year. And when I say all members, what I mean is all current employees who have passed probation.

This is perhaps the most significant aspect of Union Cab, and therein lies why we are an important example for the overall cooperative movement.

And that is why Union Cab is such an excellent antidote to Capitalism.

To become a member of Union Cab Cooperative, one needs to get hired. Once an employee passes probation and buys a share of voting stock for a mere $25, they are a full-fledged member of the cooperative with all the rights and responsibilities of membership.

All employees who pass probation are members of Union Cab Cooperative. Period.

Let me repeat, all employees who pass probation are members of the cooperative.

This is significant beyond significance.

There is no caste system. Structurally, there are no members that are more equal than others. Yes, we have managers, but they have to answer to the board of directors, which is elected from the membership, by the membership. Essentially, management works for the employees though they are given the authority to do their jobs.

And once again, everybody who works at Union Cab who has passed probation is a full-fledged member. Drivers, dispatchers, phone answerers, mechanics, IT staff, accounting staff. Everybody.

Thus everybody receives a dividend when we make a profit. Everybody can set policy by serving on the board of directors. Everybody can participate in what is a truly democratic workplace by serving on committees that hammer out policy for the board to consider. Everybody can appeal discipline to the Worker’s Council.

Everybody has all rights and all responsibilities of membership.

Why am I hammering this point home so vociferously?

A key aspect of Capitalism is the oppression of others. Capitalism is about consolidation. It’s about acquiring more and more wealth, and subsequently, it’s about me taking from you for my own monetary gain.

We’re oppressed on the basis of class, on the basis of gender, on the basis of race, on the basis of being differently abled.

Sad to say, even worker cooperatives are not immune from putting up these kinds of barriers. Some worker cooperatives are more elitist than others. Some worker cooperatives are simply too expensive for most people to join.

For instance, a cooperative cab company could be a federation of owner-operators. These are people who own their own vehicles and pool their resources to hire and manage support staff. Or, a worker cooperative might be more like a professional guild, where the members are more like partners in a law firm.

At Union Cab, there are no artificial barriers to becoming a member. Union Cab is open to anybody and everybody. There is the old joke about PhDs driving for Union and the fact that we are the most over-educated cab company in the country, but a college degree is not a requirement for membership. Our membership consists of people from all different sorts of backgrounds, and that’s because we are completely inclusive. Capitalism is about the few shutting out the many. It’s about exclusion, not inclusion. Union Cab is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Union Cab is about sustainability rather than maximizing profit because our goal is to provide a living wage for everybody, not make the owner rich. Let us remember, there are two ways to maximize profits. You increase revenue or cut costs. In a city with long and well-established taxi service, there are not many untapped sources of revenue. To cut costs, you would need to reduce labor costs. You cannot reduce capital costs because that would mean reducing the size of the fleet, which then impacts revenue.

At Union Cab this makes little sense, especially because any increase in profit goes back to the drivers. Granted, there have been times over the years where drivers have endured temporary pay cuts or surcharges but those measures were instituted to deal with economic hardship. The board of directors made those decisions in a democratic and transparent process.

Consider the example of the other two cab companies in town. Badger Cab is a share-ride, zone-rate service where drivers lease their vehicles instead of getting paid commission. When Badger’s rates go up, generally lease fees go up. Thus Badger drivers seldom see an increase in their rate of pay. In addition, because the owner of the company makes his money simply by putting warm bodies behind the wheel of as many cabs as possible, he has little incentive to beef up infrastructure or do anything else that would increase overhead. In fact, he really does not have much incentive to increase revenue. For instance, when someone calls Union Cab for a ride, we ask for their phone number, and we are more than happy to call them to let them know their taxi is waiting outside. Badger Cab does not provide that service because that would require hiring additional dispatch office staff.

Madison’s third cab company, Madison Taxi, is a metered cab company that pays drivers the same starting commission as Union Cab, thirty-six percent. Commission increases are done in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Commission is capped at forty percent. In addition, Madison Taxi drivers are forced to endure the so-called “Joe Tax,” named after owner Joe Brekke. For every fare a Madison Taxi driver runs, Brekke takes $1.50 off the top.

Union Cab’s model of sustainability translates into a greater ability to serve our community.

A few years ago, there was a movement in the city of Madison to mandate that all three cab companies provide round-the-clock, on-demand accessible taxi service. This service was sorely needed. Previously, people in wheelchairs who were not ambulatory enough to get in and out of their wheelchair and get in and out of a taxi and who did not have access to vans with wheelchair lifts were forced to rely on Madison Metro Plus for rides. Metro Plus rides must be booked in advance, and their hours are limited.

Despite the need for this service, Madison’s cab companies were alarmed because of the expense. Minivans with wheelchair ramps cost around $30,000 apiece. And then there’s the issue of training and additional insurance.

Union Cab stepped into the breach and offered a compromise. In exchange for not mandating that all three cab companies provide round-the-clock, on-demand accessible taxi service, Union Cab offered to voluntarily provide the service. Granted, this was a sound business decision, but it was a gamble as well. Still, Union Cab’s model of sustainability went a long way toward making this work.

It should be noted that Union Cab drivers who service these calls are paid commission for these rides, and some of these rides are quite lucrative. This is important to note because several years ago, Union Cab had created a separate accessible-transit division (along with a bus division). Those drivers were not paid commission, but rather were paid a relatively low hourly wage. This created the kind of caste system among our drivers that runs contrary to everything we stand for.

When grant money dried up, Union Cab liquidated those two divisions, but the lessons learned ensure that drivers who make this new service work are treated fairly and equitably.

Another example of how Union Cab serves the community involves Medical Assistance rides. Starting about ten years ago, Union Cab saw a major increase in the number of rides paid for by medical clinics and organizations. Those clinics and organizations use MA money to pay for rides that transport low-income people to and from medical appointments.

This service is invaluable. As I wrote in my September editorial, access to health care is a major component to keeping our population as healthy as possible. Providing free health care to low-income people is not enough. We need to make sure everyone is able to get to their medical appointments. If that means sending a taxi for someone who doesn’t have a car, who is unable to use public transportation or who lives out of town, that is a small investment with a big payoff.

Since 2000, infant mortality among African Americans in Dane County has decreased dramatically. I firmly believe Union Cab has a lot to do with that.

Union Cab services the vast majority of those MA rides because we provide the most reliable taxi service. Because Badger Cab is a share-ride service, they often have difficulty being on time for time calls. Madison Taxi’s business model is to flood the airport. Their attitude about street calls is, we’ll get to it when we get to it.

Union Cab has specific service goals that are tracked closely on a continual basis. All calls are dispatched in a fair and equitable manner. Quite simply, Union Cab is able to provide the kind of reliable service MA riders need and deserve.

Union Cab further serves the community by providing the safest taxi service in Madison and perhaps anywhere. As I like to say, pun intended, our risk management procedures and protocols take a backseat to no one. Our drivers are well-trained. New hires are required to take an in-house defensive-driving class. Safe drivers are paid bonuses. Any driver who gets into an accident has to face an internal review of the collision. At-fault accidents result in discipline. Unsafe drivers are fired.

On the side of every Union Cab appears the words, “safe, reliable, professional.” These are more than just words. These are concepts we take very seriously.

And then there’s the issue of the humane work environment. Okay, I’ll be honest. Maybe to a certain extent we are the hippy-dippy co-op with the longhaired weirdoes, but, let me be clear, Union Cab is a professional workplace. The inmates do not run the asylum. That said, it is not about riding people’s asses. It is not about micro-managing people to death. It is a fun, sometimes kooky place where creativity and diversity are celebrated.

It is no accident that Union Cab is chock full of writers, artist and musicians. The reasons are simple. First, the emphasis on paying a living wage means drivers do not have to work a zillion hours to make a living. When they leave work, they have the time and energy to pursue their own interests.

Also, because there is the emphasis on maintaining a humane workplace, Union Cab does not suck the soul out of its employees like so many more traditional workplaces. That is another reason why people have enough left in the tank when they’re not working to go out and write that novel or play in a band or paint or do photography or whatever else they want to do.

But what is most important about Union Cab is how it demonstrates that ordinary workers can control their own means of production and be successful. Union Cab does not hire a team of technocrats to run things. We run things. All our managers are people who climbed through the ranks. All members of the board of directors are employees. Union Cab spends a great deal of money every year to train our leaders. This is a wise investment. In addition, Union Cab has been quite innovative in terms of the types of training it has utilized.

I have often written about something I call Neo-Syndicalism, which is the creation of liberated zones within the Capitalist system. Through Neo-Syndicalism, we can transform Capitalism into something more fair and equitable and more humane.

Again, I applaud Michael Moore for recognizing that worker cooperatives provide an antidote to Capitalism. And again, his movie would have been better if he included the example of Union Cab. Hopefully, Union Cab will be included in the bonus footage when the DVD comes out.

Neo-Syndicalism: A Path Toward Reimagining Socialism

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , , , , , , — Fred Schepartz @ 6:27 pm

In Barbara Ehrenreichs groundbreaking essay, “Reimagining Socialism,” which appeared recently in The Nation, she states that we on the Left need a plan, but we don’t have a plan.

Well, I have a plan, albeit a small one.

My plan is something I like to call Neo-Syndicalism. This may sound familiar to longtime Mobius readers; I have written about this before.

Just to quickly review, Neo-Syndicalism, like Classical Syndicalism, is the notion that we can change society through economic means rather than political means. In terms of Classical Syndicalism, this is most elegantly expressed in the old IWW slogan, “one big union, one big strike.”

Neo-Syndicalism takes an updated, more pragmatic, and perhaps more cynical approach in that we acknowledge that perhaps we can’t overthrow the Capitalist system. However, within the Capitalist system we can create liberated zones through organisms like worker cooperatives, collectives, and other forms of worker-owned businesses, along with economic alternatives such as fair trade, community supported agriculture, and, in general, sustainability.

Essentially, this is about building our own economy brick by brick.

The movement, the plan, is out there. It just doesn’t know it, at least not yet. That is why I have given it a name. Giving a movement a name pulls together diffusive elements and helps provide a conduit for people with different interests to work together toward a common goal.

Or to put it another way, if you are involved in an activity that falls under my heading of Neo-Syndicalism, you are doing something greater and more significant than you realize. You should take this understanding, talk to the other members of your group, and discuss your work in this greater context. You should network with other groups that do the same thing your group does. And then you should network with groups you may not have much in common with if these groups share the strategy of Neo-Syndicalism.

It’s about building our own economy brick by brick.

In these desperate times, there’s interesting and radical things going on. Last year in Chicago, workers at Republic Windows and Doors staged a sit-in after the company was forced to close when the bank, which had received TARP funds, refused to extend a line of credit to allow the company to continue production. The worker’s refusal to let the plant close was rewarded. Another company came and in bought the plant thus saving a few hundred jobs.

In Latin America, there have been numerous instances where factories abandoned by the companies that owned them have been taken over by the workers. As one worker commented, the company came into our community, took our subsidies, took our tax breaks and then left. We are claiming ownership.

My favorite story is in France, there have been instances of boss-napping. Of course, the French being the French were rather civilized about the whole thing. While holding bosses as they waited for corporations to consider their demands, they stuffed the bosses with moules et frites.

I remember way back in 1979, when I first moved here to Madison, Wisconsin, to attend the University of Wisconsin. Somebody handed me a copy of the very last issue of the radical newspaper Takeover. I remember the slogan: “Are you going to take orders or are you going to take over?”

Granted, I’ve always found the sentiment a bit simplistic, but in this case, I think it’s quite apt. I look at the shuttered GM plant in Janesville, and all I can think is “are you going to take orders or are you going to take over?”

These corporations are afforded the same rights as individual human beings. We give them tax breaks. We give them tax subsidies. We give them tons and tons of public money so they can come into our communities to provide jobs. In these harsh economic times, we give them stimulus money so they can stay in business and continue to provide jobs.

And then they close. They either simply shut their doors or they move to other countries.

As far as I’m concerned, the GM plant in Janesville belongs to the people of Janesville. They should take over the plant and run it as a worker-owned cooperative or perhaps as a community-owned cooperative of some sort. They could produce anything they want, though perhaps it might make the most sense if they produced cars. Perhaps they could contract with one of the surviving auto companies. Or maybe they could actually start their own auto manufacturing company. Or maybe they could take over Saturn once GM officially discontinues that line.

One might think, automakers designing cars? Ridiculous?

Well, of course they’d hire design engineers and whatever brain power they need, but just imagine what kind of cars such a plant would produce when the workers who produce the vehicles and drive the vehicles actually have a say in the design of the vehicles. Gee, they might actually be vehicles people want to drive!

And yes, I do understand this is a pipe dream without a massive infusion of cash. After all, as a character in The Right Stuff says, “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

If the government can bail out the banks and the auto companies, they can provide money to facilitate the formation of worker-owned-and-operated cooperatives at abandoned manufacturing plants. This would comprise a real economic stimulus package. It would save and create jobs. It would be great for the communities that die long, slow, painful deaths when a manufacturing plant closes.

And it would help get us back into the business of building stuff the world wants to buy.

The Obama Administration should call for an initiative to provide grants and low interest loans to abandoned workers who want to form worker cooperatives. In fact, the Obama Administration should encourage abandoned workers to take over shuttered manufacturing plants.

Of course, there’s a chicken/egg aspect to this. Workers should view this tactic strategically, that if more and more workers take over abandoned manufacturing plants, it could be a way to force the Obama Administration to take positive action. We saw this during the FDR Administration, and it’s equally true now: radical change comes from the bottom up. Remember, FDR himself said, “Make me.” Obama has pretty much implied the same thing, urging people to organize, to basically give him political cover to be able to move in stronger directions.

But let’s make one thing perfectly clear: Neo-Syndicalism is not merely a tactic to push government into a more radical direction. It’s a strategy. Again, it’s about rebuilding our economy, brick by brick. It’s about telling the corporatocracy that we will no longer play their little reindeer games, that we can find a path toward a real and lasting prosperity without them.
Neo-Syndicalism is just a term I came up with, but as I’ve said time and time again, words have great power. What we’re talking about is defining a movement that’s out there, working hard and doing good work. By identifying this as a movement, we create a synergy that will make it stronger through greater numbers and more comprehensive exchanges of information and, in general, people power.

December 14, 2009

#15: Member Economic Participation

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 2:33 pm

The third of the so-called User Principles is the principle of Member Economic Participation. Think of this as the users of the co-operative financially support the co-operative. The identity statement states:

3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation

Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.

This principle provides for the funding of the co-operative. Members should support their co-operative financially and provide the necessary capital to maintain and grow the organization. Capital, in a co-operative, has a vitally different role. As this definition of this principle suggests, capital exists to serve the needs of the co-operative (and the members). Unlike stockholders, however, capital does not get used to simply generate a profit, it gets used to enhance the benefits to the users of the co-operative, its membership.

The control of capital rests in the basis of democracy. People’s ability to participate in the co-operative comes from a minimal threshold of participation. In the United Kingdom, the share in The Co-operative is ₤1.00. At Union Cab, the cost of a share is $25.00. The main form of capital development in co-operatives comes through operations; however, members might also be expected to invest when necessary. For consumer co-operatives, the main way to address capital comes through setting prices at an appropriate level to meet capital demands. For worker co-operatives, wages and shift charges help meet the capital needs.

In a worker co-operative, the discussion over wages and benefits brings life to this principle. The ability to raise or lower pay and benefits allows the members of the co-operative to collectively decide how well to fund the co-operative. As with the consumer co-ops and prices, this allows the worker co-operative to engage in the market economy without a profit motive.

The lack of the profit motive, however, does not mean that the co-op isn’t driven to succeed in the marketplace. In a worker co-operative, the only way to increase wages and benefits is to increase market share. The role of profit (or surplus) relates more to capital replacement rather than creating rewards for stockholders. In many ways, this principle drives worker co-operatives. The “reward” for hard work is not a patronage refund, it is the good paying job (for the industry) with great working conditions (for the industry). However, the need for capital still exists and workers must manage it carefully.
Worker co-ops have to balance the operational and capital needs along with the very human needs of living wage, safe and humane workplaces, and a democratic environment. In this case, the concept of member economic participation means more that writing a check, it means that the members must accept responsibility to control their co-operatives capital. In a consumer co-op, it is relatively easy: hire managers with strong financial skills and let them manage. For worker co-operatives, we often have to teach our entire membership especially our board to understand finances. Most of us, in worker co-ops, majored in History and social studies, we avoided accounting and business classes like the plaque. This creates a unique challenge of educating our membership and creating a culture of fiscal intelligence.

That challenge creates a danger. Too often, because of ignorance, our worker co-operatives follow the industry standards in financial management and human resources. This is an error. The industry standards have been designed to maximize profit and treat the worker as an “asset” or a “resource”. As we learn about finance and how the money flows through our co-operative, we need to be cognizant that the purpose of having the money to flow isn’t to make more money, but to make our lives better.

Next Week: A diversion into Mondragon and the Worker Co-op User Principles

December 9, 2009

#14 Democratic Member Control

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 9:09 am

After missing my Monday morning deadline due to a funeral, Mother Nature has given me the gift of a day away from the office (I really haven’t anyway to get to work) so I can at least catch up on the series.

The Identity Statement created the following definition for the Second Principle of Co-operatives:

Co-operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organised in a democratic manner.

This principle acts as the second of the “User Principles.” In this case, the users of the co-operative control the co-operative. In a worker co-operative, it is the workers who are using the co-operative in order to earn a fair living.

The Identity Statement Background Paper makes the following point about this principle: “Within co-operatives, ‘democracy’ includes considerations of rights; indeed, rights and responsibilities. but it also means more: it means fostering the spirit of democracy within co-operatives, a never-ending, difficult, valuable, even essential, task.”

In general, this principle leads to the membership empowering a board of directors to make decisions who then often empower a manager to make operational decisions. However, in many worker co-operatives, this principle comes to life with non-hierarchical structures in which all decisions (the big strategic and philosophical to the small operational) allow input and decision making by the collective. There is a basic concept that for a collective to truly operate as a collective it needs to stay under forty members. Obviously, the larger and more spread out the operation, the more likely it is need levels of hierarchy to manage effectively.

This principle brings up one of the more exciting differences between worker co-operatives and other sectors. Because the users/members are the workers, the function of democracy takes a significantly different role. Even in large co-operatives, the operational issues get debated by the membership. Management generally involves working with people to develop a consensus as opposed to barking orders. It also involves clearly defined roles for those times when someone does have to bark orders.

Mondragon has a famous saying that “there is no democracy on the shop floor.” I understand that concept, but disagree to a point. Obviously, every decision cannot involve a consensus of the majority. People have to be assigned roles with authority to act and have those decisions respected. However, there are ways to build in a sense of democracy into the operations. To me, that is one of the challenges of worker co-operatives. As stated earlier, we have a responsibility to foster the spirit of democracy throughout our actions. For those of us who have hierarchy in our co-operatives (especially those of us who have the title of “manager”), we need to find ways to manage that reflect the spirit of the principles. We cannot simply model our competitors and say that we have democracy because their is an annual meeting and board of directors.

Another key point in the discussion of democracy involves the middle sentence of the principle description: “Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership.” The Background Paper makes the following concept: “This sentence reminds elected representatives that they hold their offices in trust for the immediate and long-term benefit of members. Co-operatives do not ‘belong’ to elected officials any more than they ‘belong’ to the employees who report to these officials.” In a worker co-operative, the sense of ownership is vital to its success. However, we must remember that we are a democratic organization and while we may be owners, our control is collective. To paraphrase Chief Seattle, “We belong to the co-operative, it does not belong to us.” As a result, it is our duty as leaders, directors and owners to take care of the co-operative for the generations of workers who will be looking to it for their healthy workplace.

Next Week: Member Economic Participation–the last of the user principles.

December 3, 2009

Cooperation and Human Nature

Filed under: Education,Society — Tags: , — Bernard @ 12:26 am

The New York Times published an article on childhood behavioral studies, among related research, that reveals a more positive and nuanced view of our biological heritage than the Social Darwinist promoted. However the article leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the social significance of these studies. I have tried to expand on what I think are major implications of this research.

Cooperation and Human Nature

Here are two excerpts from a recent news feature.

“I cannot direct anybody to do anything that they do not want to do. All decision-making is by consensus.”

All around . . . groups organized themselves in democratic cooperatives, arranged in an anti-hierarchy. All deliberations are open — and exhaustive. Everyone gets their say no matter how long it takes. “It is bottom-up and not top-down.”

Members of cooperatives will recognize these comments. In fact they are so commonplace as to be burdened with a ton of baggage. For some a smile will approach the lips in appreciation of the value of these statements. Others might feel their teeth clenching in anticipation of the seemingly endless meetings that they associate with deliberations over meaningless details.

The quotes however do not emanate from a co-op board meeting. They are attributed, in a Wall Street Journal blog, to the scientists working on “the largest machine in the world.”1

That happens to be the Large Hadron Collider — a $6 billion particle accelerator near Geneva, with thousands scientists involved in its operation.

This wasn’t the only science collaboration mentioned in the article. Also highlighted was OpenWetWare, a wiki established in 2005 by two MIT students “to promote the sharing of information, know-how, and wisdom among researchers and groups who are working in biology & biological engineering.” It now has 7,000 users.

In a similar vein, paleontologists launched the Open Dinosaur Project “to involve scientists and the public alike in developing a comprehensive database of dinosaur limb bone measurements, to investigate questions of dinosaur function and evolution.” They further state as their goals: “1) do good science; 2) do this science in the most open way possible; and 3) allow anyone who is interested to participate.”

To be absolutely clear about their last point, they stress that they “do not care about your education, geographic location, age, or previous background with paleontology. The only requirement for joining us is that you share the goals of our project and are willing to help out in the efforts.”

The Internet, originally devised decades ago by researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), where the Collider is based, amplifies worldwide the historic collegiality cultivated by scientists.  Given the obvious success of scientific endeavors, one wonders why these cooperative practices haven’t migrated to other areas. In some limited ways they have been adopted by the arts, and to a lesser extent, education. But in the realm of business, collaboration occurs only under strict guidelines, if at all.

We don’t need to idolize the community of scientists. There are researchers who eagerly enlist in schemes to privatize science – to value the marketplace over the disinterested desire to further research for the public benefit. Nevertheless, the model of collaboration many scientists seek, in which peers define projects and seeking solutions, remains foreign to the world of business.

Capitalist collaboration on the level of mutual advantage, of course, as in price-fixing, certainly happens more frequently than its criminalization. And there is the transparently manipulative practice of  “team work” in many corporations, which I only mention to quickly dismiss. 2

Cooperatively working together embodies a reciprocity of dignity that finds no place in the corporate world we know today, where individual advancement rules.

As commodification intensifies, enveloping all aspects of life, the ethic that must sustain community diminishes. We diminish too. It comes as no surprise that kids enter middle school as full-fledged consumers. What should shock is that they have internalized their commodification. Buying into the notion of society as an arena for a never-ending quest for ego fulfillment leads directly to life viewed as a battle of egos. This socialization of our children, as essentially a fight over scarcity on an individual and social level, is a consequence of the popular perception of our “human nature.” We have here the reactionary, individualistic thinking that drives capitalism – the survival of the fittest: social Darwinism.

The rise of Darwinism (a toxic blend of Darwin with Malthus) served the 19th century capitalists well. “Captains of the economy” claimed as their right to rule a pseudo-science founded on a specious law of biology.

Capitalist “science” didn’t persuade the partisans of the newly organizing industrial workers. The masters of the workers, as the workers themselves experienced, were not to be held hostage to the  reason of science, when the science of power – ultimately clubs and bullets – was far more effective. The clarity of the left to recognize the abuse of science, as a servant of power, didn’t prevent them wholeheartedly endorsing Darwin as a liberator. For the left, Darwin forever consigned the Christian origins of humankind to myth.

Friedrich Engels eulogized Marx as the discoverer of the law of human development, comparing him to Darwin the founder of  “the law of development of organic nature.”3 Engels here was following Marx who viewed Darwin’s scientific contribution as pertaining only to human anatomy and physiology. Centuries before the birth of Marx, “enlightened” thinking held that human development was determined by environmental factors. Moreover Hegel, Marx’s mentor, envisioned society “evolving” to greater heights.

The only exception to the general celebration of Darwinist biological determinism came from Peter Kropotkin. His fieldwork across an impressive range of animal and human societies made him recognize and appreciate the role of cooperation in human endeavors.  Kropotkin’s anarchist criticism of Darwinism as new theology in defense of the status quo, of course, relegated him to obscurity outside scientific circles.

Amongst social scientists the nuanced interpretation of evolution presented by Kropotkin, and others, lately has led researchers to devise experiments that show “that both 25-month olds and school-age children in a very similar paradigm select the equitable option more often than the selfish option.”4

There are studies that show that very young children, working in teams develop trust by negotiating perceived selfishness. Other studies show that a shared project with a joint goal creates interdependence, mutually recognized – a “we” amongst the children. And even babies, unable to use language, show helpfulness in carefully structured experiments by pointing or by their eye movements. Language itself may have developed within the context of collaborative activities where achieving a common goal depends upon the coordination of individual roles.

This research has significant implications for a politics beyond ethical aspirations to one grounded in a view of human nature with an innate need for camaraderie. Those who seek a more just society need not counter a spurious conception of human nature as “red in tooth and claw” with the equally false proposition that the human condition is infinitely malleable. A belief which leads to dystopian dead-ends and which still informs, in a less maniacal way, political liberalism and its love for social engineering.  The perfectibility of humankind is not the issue.

The issue is encouraging collaborative activities beyond the intimate dealings of a small group – outside what Michael Tomasello calls the protected environment:

When we are engaged in a mutually beneficial collaborative activity, when I help you play your role either through physical help or by informing you of something useful, I am helping myself, as your success in your role is critical to our overall success. Mutualistic activities thus provide a protected environment for the initial steps in the evolution of altruistic motives.5

Over ten years ago, before most of this research was conducted, Peter Singer wrote an intriguing little book: A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation. In it he critiques social Darwinism and the left’s fear of engaging in the controversy over human nature. He takes his stand for a left that abandons the paradigm of human progress based on fine-tuning social conditions.

Singer calls for a broader interpretation of self-interest that current findings of child behavior validate.  He also promotes the idea that the left needs to encourage cooperative behavior and to channel competition into socially desirable ends, which corresponds to the notion of extending the protected environment mentioned above.

As a philosopher, not a scientist, and writing about research which at the time was tentative, Singer however falls back on the same ground as the traditional left that he critiques. He relies on the role of reason, to balance or offset nature. He approvingly quotes Richard Dawkins who grants that though we are built like gene machines, “we have the power to turn against our creators”6

No one wants to argue against the role of reason in the pursuit of knowledge. However the latest behavioral discoveries lead to a firmer footing in science than thought possible a few years ago. From these studies of children implications can be drawn that improve our understanding of the building blocks of social norms, that is mutually expected standards of behavior. Human beings are biologically adapted to grow and develop to maturity within a cultural context, through collaborative efforts.

This research informs an optimistic view of the human condition. It seriously undermines the perspective that Herbert Marcuse postulated in One-Dimensional Man, where he questioned the liberation of humankind given the universal internalization of domination through socialization. And it supports Rebecca Solnit’s view in A Paradise Built in Hell that catastrophes can disperse the weight of commodified behavior to free deeper, life-affirming motivations.

In Tomasello’s conclusions one aspect relates to the larger issues of scientific collaboration noted at the beginning of this essay. He writes:

Children are motivated to engage in these kinds of collaborative activities for their own sake, not just for their contribution to individual goals.7

What are we to make of this comment? Certainly it relates to those experiences we have as adults when we find ourselves, either by plan or circumstance, engaged in an activity with great social significance. The activity may be physically grueling, we may even be in the company of strangers and the goal may not be of our devising, but when that goal is attained, or even when to the best of our collective abilities it is lost, during and afterwards we feel elation and a heightened sense of awareness.

For most people these experiences of collective pursuit occur sparingly and with modest intensity under circumstances that are not wholly spontaneous, as when regulated by church or civic activities. Or they are confined to those parts of our lives that are lived haphazardly as leisure pursuits. Even in scientific communities the pressures of professional performance inhibit the fullest realization of collaboration as a collective intellectual adventure. This reality may account for the eager participation among scientists when simple wiki-style collaborations do appear.

The innate pursuit of collaboration that Tomasello records challenges Singer’s wholesale dismissal of utopianism. The simple association of utopianism with the view that humans are malleable creatures, a view that Singer attributes to the traditional left, is flawed.  Firstly, it ignores the sense of hope explicit with visionary strivings.  Secondly, Singer’s views are wide of the mark in light of these new behavioral studies. How else can we think of expanding the space for collaborative experiences if we are not open to the allures of utopianism? What in fact are the ultimate collaborative experiences if not those associated with play in its many forms as games, festivals and more? Nowhere else in our societies does the exuberance of human fulfillment readily appear. And, to venture a utopian question, why is it absent in those parts of our lives where we spend so much time seeking our survival?

Bernard Marszalek

December 2, 2009

www.jasecon.org

info@jasecon.org


1 More Scientists Treat Experiments as a Team Sport Robert Lee Hotz, November 20, 2009, Wall Street Journal

2 I should mention that an indirect subversion of the usual hierarchical business methods may result from the growing influence of “social entrepreneurship” but only if those who are intrigued with this approach to solving social ills recognize the systemic exploitation that created them in the first place.

3 Engels quoted in Peter Singer. 1999 A Darwinian Left (21)

4 Michael Tomasello. 2009 Why We Cooperate (23)

5 Tomasello (85)

6 Richard Dawkins 1976 The Selfish Gene (63)

7 Tomasello (105)

Powered by WordPress