Theorizing a Framework for Communist Cooperative Governance for a People’s Communal State/Zone
part two in a series about cooperatives and cooperative governance
INTRODUCTION
We need a flexible and experimental strategic plan and framework that provides an alternative political and economic structure and organization for cooperative districts, zones, and a people’s communal state. This framework should encourage and foster a culture of cooperation and collectivism, moving beyond the traditional U.S. liberal approach of accommodating business unionism and aiming to abolish class mobility and hierarchy. The current void in strong and decisive leadership oriented toward reorganizing the existing political philosophy to build worker consciousness and class militancy has created a liberal tradition in the U.S. that blurs the line between capital and labor, creating a deradicalized system of accommodationism. This is important as we consider the principles needed to prevent the degradation of particularly worker cooperatives into the liberal tradition and through the co-optation of the State. What we want to avoid is utilizing worker cooperatives as a tool for individual middle-class and economic mobility. Without a clear political philosophy tied to a mass class, race, gender, sexuality, disability, environment, climate, and decolonial consciousness, and militancy, worker ownership “can be seen as a mechanism for attaining middle-class identity” and maintaining class hierarchy and capitalism. The question is not whether worker-cooperatives are revolutionary—worker-cooperatives are only as revolutionary as the overarching political and economic philosophy and organization they operate under.
I seek to answer the following questions to articulate a theoretical framework for a radical cooperative governance structure for a people’s communal state:
What is a durable and sustainable governing framework for radical cooperatives that cannot be co-opted by the state and private actors? How do we prevent drifting away from cooperative principles toward traditional corporate hierarchical management structures?
How do we prevent coops from running the risk of becoming an instrumentality and extension of the capitalist State?
How do we address the tension between cooperative, communalism ideology and cooperative business?
How do cooperatives maintain labor militancy?
How can cooperative worker-owners see themselves as part of revolutionary societal transformation?
How do we create a culture and practice of critique?
LESSONS LEARNED FROM STATE INTERVENTION IN THE SOCIAL AND COOPERATIVE ECONOMY
The role of the State in the social economy is contradictory. Tensions exist between the desire for autonomy and a centralized State that sets planning, social, and economic objectives as the owner of productive capital. Marxist-Leninist socialist states, such as Cuba, have shown reticence and a distrust toward autonomous organizations for fear that they will regress to individualist and rent-seeking behavior, and undermine, and threaten the legitimacy and monopoly of the State. The concern is that autonomous economic activity will degenerate into individualist behavior and private markets and that autonomy leads to “a disconnection from the larger strategic objectives of the socialist state’s economic plan.” This is a question of how workers understand their position as a class antagonistic to capital and develop a daily and lifelong practice and culture of cooperativism. Nevertheless, under this organization, with a distrust of autonomous markets and a belief in the domination of the State, it is easy for even socialist States to co-opt cooperatives into broader State growth and job creation initiatives, leaving cooperatives no more than an extension of the State carrying out social welfare functions. We see this in worker cooperatives in Korea. Ji (2018) shows how worker coops have become deradicalized and depoliticized as they become incorporated and absorbed into state-sanctioned “worker-enforcing social welfare” programs.
State intervention can result in an undermining of the revolutionary potential of cooperatives. Soojin (2013) makes a similar argument, stating that heavy governmental intervention can strip cooperatives of their principles. It is important to note that worker cooperatives engaging in the day-to-day operations of the business to create better economic conditions for their members is valid, however, without an overarching strategic framework that fundamentally changes the political philosophical orientation from liberal economics to Marxist economics, the risk remains for worker cooperatives to adopt market values and emphasize economism and “competitive business practices.”
As long as cooperatives exist in a global capitalist system, they run the risk of conforming to the pressures of market competition, especially as the cooperative seeks to grow. Consequences of this conforming include duplicating for-profit corporations through professionalization, widening gaps between managers and workers as cooperatives grow, and the reappearance of hierarchy and a representative democracy structure that does not reflect the interests of the members. As such, cooperatives do not resolve the conflict between capital and labor, nor does worker ownership. What keeps cooperatives sustainable and rooted in labor militancy is a worker-conscious culture that enables worker-owners to see themselves not as “owners” but as workers part of the class struggle.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE PEOPLE’S COMMUNAL STATE IN DEVELOPING COOPERATIVE DISTRICTS/ZONES?
Liberalism as the dominant political and economic philosophy in the United States, has remained unquestioned and critiqued, fundamentally distorting and undermining the form of cooperatives and their ability to succeed in transforming society, divest from capitalism, and enable workers to see themselves as part of a broader movement antagonistic to capital relations and societal organization. This means that cooperatives have not realized their full revolutionary potential if workers do not see themselves as part of the class, race, gender, sexuality, disability, environmental, climate, and decolonial struggles.
We should see cooperativism and collectivism as the ideological basis for promoting a lifelong and life-affirming journey towards full human development and actualization, self-sufficiency, autonomy, and democracy. Here is where the question about the role of the State becomes particularly salient and requires further investigation. Can a people’s “communal state,” conceptualized by Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, engage in both central planning while preserving self-governance and autonomy? Does cultural change come from State or worker-cooperative institutions, or the people themselves? Should the State involve itself with autonomous worker-cooperatives? Part of these answers lie in how we want to conceive of a new State.
Comments on the State
Many people are rightly wary of perpetuating the State because of ongoing histories of fascist authoritarianism and state repression of any alternatives to self-expression and being. What can a people’s communal state look like in the U.S. context under a Marxist political and economic philosophy? I am particularly interested in combining Venezuela's communal state and China’s decentralized and democratic centralist governmental form and structure as a basis for a U.S. people’s communal state. Venezuela utilizes communal councils and communes as the “main organizational framework” to facilitate neighborhood-level autonomy and decision-making. The communal state comprises several communal self-governments, or councils, which can plan and coordinate community projects. Azzellini (2021) brings up again the question of whether the State and institutions can coexist with self-government and autonomy.
Is self-government undermined if organizations depend on the State for funding and resources? Qian and Xu (1993) describe China’s M-form economic structure, which is decentralized along regional lines. State-owned enterprises are subordinated under the regional governments and owned by the people, which makes them self-sufficient. Under this organization, China’s central government is hands-off to allow regional governments to be “deeply involved” in their communities. The central government grants the regional governments more autonomy and responsibility to develop their initiatives in their regions, set their prices, and create new enterprises to support the local economy. The M-form structure incentivizes local governments to expand their social sector and cooperatives, whereas China’s central government does not own social sector enterprises. Since state-owned enterprises are handed over to local governments, the M-form structure encourages local governments to have numerous non-state social enterprises making products and services, enabling fast entry of these enterprises into the social sector. China’s central government supports local experimentation for new policies, initiatives, and programs with less discretionary power. In contrast, Qian and Xu (1993) describe the U-form economic structure of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which is characterized as a highly centrally planned government with large numbers of state-owned enterprises controlled by the central government, and where industries are concentrated. The role of local governments is limited under a U-form structure, which, in part, enables the central government to achieve economies of scale and more quickly mobilize resources.
I bring these examples up because, as we think about communist futures, we need to address the role of the State. We can envision a State in line with the Marxist tradition that reflects the framework of a decentralized communal state and U.S. politics and culture. Cooperatives can be a vehicle to achieve self-management and autonomy through an aggregated federation of connected cooperatives that can create and expand local commodity chains, value chains, and supply chains. Over time, this structure can develop into a people’s communal state and government, where governance and decision-making come from autonomous organizations and local communities. This people’s communal state can operate in a centralized form to set industry standards through worker councils, create frameworks and guidelines to ensure ideological cohesion for cooperatives and organizations and mobilize economies of scale to take on functions and industries that local communities cannot or are not equipped to.
We can take this new conceptualization of a people’s communal state in overlapping transitional stages where in the first stage, the state leverages its economies of scale to supply local organizations and communities with necessities (e.g. food, universal basic income, medicine, public housing), effectively controlling these large industries. In the second stage, the state supports autonomous workers and social cooperatives and organizations in building their skills, capacity, networks, and supply chains to take over state-owned industries. In the third stage, with the ability to practice direct democracy and governance at the local level, the state can wither away as people gain the tools for autonomous self-governance.
The main barriers to this concept of a people’s communal state, and to cooperatives in general seeking to unlock their revolutionary potential, are the political underdevelopment of the US’ian masses and the existing liberal capitalist political-economic philosophy in the U.S. There are few spaces to practice direct democracy and consensus building. There is also a lack of an educational framework that encourages the practice of critical and dialectical thinking, conflict, and tolerance to different ideas. These habits are underdeveloped in the United States and pose a challenge to direct democratic participation. The state can create a culture of cooperation by providing organizations and communities with tools, training, and resources for developing and advancing this practice. In my view, cultural change is a two-front process that comes from both the state (the institution) and the people. The basis for any people’s communal state and cooperatives is political education to politicize the masses and develop class, race, gender, sexuality, disability, environmental, climate, and decolonial consciousness.
My concept of the State leans into the contradiction of state centralization and autonomous self-governance at the local level. The United States, the imperial core, is in a unique position as a state with vast hoarded resources, entrenched institutions, and large state apparatus. Given the access to and availability of resources and excess supply, the federal government’s economies of scale and its ability to use these existing resources to feed, clothe, and house the masses to end homelessness, hunger, and economic and financial precarity (under a non-liberal philosophy), people will have the opportunity to organize their labor and productivity how they choose, and not organize out of survival. Such a conceptualization of the State emphasizes full human and political development and self-actualization, something impossible to do under a liberal capitalist orientation as to survive, people must compete for resources.
The critique about state paternalism is a valid one, that if the state provides these necessities, this undermines people’s ability to be self-sufficient. In the resource-rich U.S., can a people’s communal state be organized to mobilize mass supply chains at the federal level and nationalize industries to ensure people have the basic needs to thrive while enabling local autonomy and self-governance? If the goal is to redirect organizing energy toward developing the social and solidarity economy and expanding social cooperatives to foster social reproduction, care, and reciprocity work, then the people’s communal state can be a supportive partner in achieving this goal. Labor decisions should be made at the local level, by the people, so that people are in charge of how they work, and what resources should be prioritized to meet community needs.
The State can provide the framework for an alternative political system and organization that emphasizes a philosophy of full human development, humanity, and lifelong self-actualization. People need their needs met so that they can heal from trauma, rest, and focus less on organizing to survive and more on organizing to develop themselves as full humans, their communities, and their local cooperative economy as a way to divest from white supremacy, and liberal capitalism.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RADICAL COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE FOR A PEOPLE’S COMMUNAL STATE/ZONE
Based on the literature review, I theorize the following principles for a framework for radical cooperative governance for a people’s communal state/zone:
The Role of the State
Systems and institutions of governance need flexibility for periods of decentralization and centralization. There are times when the people’s communal state needs to be deployed to centralize power to utilize its economies of scale to conduct projects at a national scale. Decentralized autonomous organizations and councils can serve as a check against corruption, hierarchy, and concentrations of power.
The people’s communal state’s most important function is to protect the social and solidarity economy from its right-wing enemies and liberal ideology by combating fascism, individualism, rent-seeking behavior, and sabotage from private actors. The state, and the people who make up the state, must have a clear Marxist-based and anti-liberal philosophy to ensure the durability and survivability of the social and solidarity economy.
The state should also pass National Enabling Legislation to create a category for social cooperatives and create umbrella and sector organizations that can help with industry-based training, skill building, education, and technical assistance.
Social cooperatives are the foundation for the cooperative and circular economy to meet the immediate needs of intentionally marginalized communities, including low-income women of color, immigrant women, and front-line workers who are disproportionately taking on the labor of care and reproductive work. A circular economy must center social cooperatives as the basis for reciprocity-based work and alternative forms of labor production.
Political Education
To avoid the tendency for worker-cooperatives to default into day-to-day economism, cooperatives must have a political orientation to bring an ideological focus on class, race, gender, sexuality, disability, environmental, climate, and decolonial consciousness. All cooperatives must institute a practice of political education to create a culture of cooperativism and self-management, as well as leadership development. It is only through this cultural practice of political education that worker-cooperatives can realize their revolutionary potential, as long as worker-owners see themselves as part of the broader class movement against capital.
Part of this practice should be a regular habit of reading Mao’s Combat Liberalism, (read Mao in general) which outlines how we can be critical of liberal ideology and its manifestations. Worker-owners must practice critical and dialectical thinking, consensus building, and working through conflicts and contradictions to effectively participate in democratic decision-making.
Governance Structure
As with the people’s communal state, there are times when cooperatives will be faced with decisions about centralization and decentralization, especially as the cooperative begins to grow. The challenge is maintaining horizontal and non-hierarchical governance, which can be strained as cooperatives grow larger than 250 members, compete in the global capitalist market, and undertake more labor-intensive projects and initiatives.
Cooperatives need to be rooted in principles of self-management and leadership development and operate under a democratic centralist or consensus-building governance structure to reject hierarchy and concentrations of power around one person.
References:
Azzellini, Dario. (2021, 119). Communes in Venezuela in Times of Crisis.
Backer, Cata Larry. (2013). The Cooperative as a Proletarian Corporation: The Global Dimensions of Property Rights and the Organization of Economic Activity in Cuba. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business.
Basterretxea, Imanol, Cornforth, Chris, and Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki. (2022, 367). Corporate Governance as a Key Aspect in the Failure of Worker Cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Vol. 43 (1). 362-397.
Ji, M. (2016). Revolution or reform? Union-Worker Cooperative Relations in the United States and Korea. Labor Studies Journal. https://www.academia.edu/89046313/Revolution_or_Reform_Union_Worker_Cooperative_Relations_in_the_United_States_and_Korea.
Ji, Minsun. (2019, 21). With or Without Class: Resolving Marx’s Janus-faced Interpretation of Worker-Owned Cooperatives. Capital & Class. doi: 10.1177/0309816819852757 journals.sagepub.com/home/cnc.
Kim, Soojin. (2013). The Cooperative Movement in Korea. College of Business Administration, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
Ludlam, Steve. (2014). Cooperativas No Agropecuarias: The Emergence of a New Form of Social Property in Cuba. International Journal of Cuban Studies.
Qian, Y. and Xu, C. (1993, 25). Why China’s Economic Reforms Differ: The M-Form Hierarchy and Entry/Expansion of the Non-State Sector. Centre for Economic Performance.
Restakis, John. Humanizing Work: Co-operatives After the Age of Capital.
Xu, Chenggang. (2010). The Fundamental Institutions of China’s Reform and Development. Journal of Economic Literature.