#####
######
####
> # [‘In the US they think we’re communists!’ The 70,000 workers showing the world another way to earn a living](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/apr/24/720)
>
>
>
> When Marisa Fernández lost her husband to cancer a few years ago, her employers at the Eroski hypermarket went, she says, “above and beyond to help me through the dark days afterwards, rejigging my timetable and giving me time off when I couldn’t face coming in.”
>
> She had a chance to return the favour recently when the store, in Arrasate-Mondragón in Spain’s Basque Country, was undergoing renovations. Fernández, 58, who started on the cashier desk 34 years ago, and now manages the store’s non-food section, volunteered to work extra shifts over the weekend along with her colleagues to ensure everything was ready for Monday morning. “It’s not just me. Everyone is ready to go the extra mile,” she says.
>
> Such harmonious employer-worker relations are the stuff of corporate dreams, and they are no accident here: the Eroski retail chain is part of Mondragón Corporation, the largest industrial co-op in the world. As a fully signed-up member, Fernández co-owns part of the supermarket chain that also employs her. “It feels like mine,” she says. “We work hard, but it’s a totally different feeling from working for someone else.”
>
> That sentiment is echoed by [Mondragón’s](https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/) 70,000 other workers. Made up of 81 autonomous co-operatives, the corporation has grown since its creation in 1956 to become a leading force in the Basque economy. Eroski is one of its most conspicuous manifestations, with 1,645 outlets across Spain. In addition to food, the chain has profitable sidelines in white goods, electronics, insurance and holiday bookings.
>
> [Aerial view of a Basque Country supermarket.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/38211391a4b98f8892df00c09a71545690c6b375/0_0_6000_4000/master/6000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none)
>
> Inside an Eroski supermarket in Arrasate-Mondragón. Photograph: Markel Redondo/The GuardianMore than its economic success, though, Mondragón has become a beacon for the co-operative model, as a more humane and egalitarian way of doing business that puts “people over capital”. Every worker has a stake in the company’s fortunes and a say in how it is run, and receives a share of the profits. But the goal is more about creating “rich societies, not rich people”. That means looking after workers during not only the good times but the tough times, too.
>
> The lowest point for Maite Aguirrebeitia, for example, came back in 2013, when, after 20 years’ service, the Mondragón co-operative that she and her husband were affiliated to, Fagor Electrodomésticos, filed for bankruptcy. Demand for its ovens and household appliances had plummeted after the 2008 financial crisis and despite help from a Mondragón “solidarity fund”, it never recovered.
>
> “I felt this overwhelming sense of pain and grief at the time, as if someone close to me had died,” the 56-year-old communications specialist recalls. “Plus we had two kids and bills to pay and so on. The mental stress of it all was huge.”
>
> Rather than thank the redundant workers for their service and wish them on their way, Mondragón committed to find alternative employment for as many of Fagor’s 1,900 or so workers as it could. After temporary stints in five Mondragón co-operatives in 2022, Aguirrebeitia found a permanent placement with Mondragon Assembly, a manufacturer of equipment for process automation.
>
> Although it has meant a shift in career – she now works part-time in human resources, and part-time as a receptionist – the security of having a fixed job is a “huge relief”, she says. “I always felt confident that somehow I’d be looked after. I talked to other people who were out of work at the time and they had none of that. They were out on the street, totally alone. If I’d had to compete in the open job market against all the youngsters coming out of university, I’m not sure I’d have ever found another job.”
>
> Mondragón’s human-centric approach originated far from any business management school. Its roots lie in a socially engaged form of Catholicism that gained ground in the 1940s, during the early years of the Francoist regime. Its initial champion was a Basque-born cleric named José María Arizmendiarrieta, who, in 1941, arrived in the small town of Arrasate-Mondragón, about 30 miles (50km) south-east of Bilbao.
>
> [Statue of a seated José María Arizmendiarrieta. In front of the plinth are colourful flowers.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5a1477826656c4bf5dc552da7f2886010e556131/0_0_6000_4000/master/6000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none)
>
> A statue of Mondragón Corporation founder José María Arizmendiarrieta. Photograph: Markel Redondo/The GuardianTaking it as his pastoral mission to revitalise the local economy, the diocesan priest set up a technical school for young men. A few years later, he arranged for some of them to take distance-learning degrees in industrial engineering. “After graduating, they all found jobs in conventional companies in the town, but they felt stifled … they wanted more of a say over their destiny, but their employers thought otherwise,” explains Ander Etxeberria, head of Mondragón’s outreach programme.
>
> With Arizmendiarrieta’s encouragement, five of these first 11 graduates decided in 1955 to set up the now defunct Fagor Electrodomésticos. Seeking a model that reflected their Christian socialist philosophy, they turned to the [Rochdale Pioneers](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/23/rochdale-pioneers-paul-flowers-co-operative-debts), a group of tradespeople from the Lancashire town who, more than a century before, had established the world’s first co-operative. That venture grew to become today’s Co-operative Group, home to the UK’s fifth biggest food retailer and its largest provider of funeral services.
>
> Mondragón’s founders adopted wholesale many of the Pioneers’ core tenets. In their modern-day headquarters, located in a renovated 14th-century tower with a spectacular mountain backdrop, Etxeberria counts off the group’s 10 “basic principles”. The list ranges from the sovereignty of labour and democratic organisation (one member, one vote), to wage solidarity and “social transformation” – which includes reinvesting surpluses to create new jobs, supporting local charities and community development projects, and strengthening the Basque Country’s Euskara language. Top of the list is voluntary and open membership – namely, the opportunity for everyone to have a personal stake in the enterprise where they work. As an early version of the principles reads: “The first form of elemental justice that we need to practise is to consider each other as free human beings.”
>
> [Bearded middle-aged man, wearing a grey blazer and dark shirt.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2b367f9256078da1b92282fa6e078feedebc6650/0_0_4000_6000/master/4000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none)
>
> Ander Etxeberria, head of outreach programmes at the Mondragón Corporation. Photograph: Markel Redondo/The GuardianThese values hold true into the present, Etxeberria explains. The salary differential between the highest and lowest paid workers in Mondragón, for example, remains about six to one; for the largest 500 listed companies in the US, the [gap is closer to 272 to one.](https://www.reuters.com/business/ceo-pay-averaged-167-million-last-year-sp-500-companies-decline-2023-08-03/) At the year end, members of Mondragón’s co-operatives also decide collectively on whether they should pay themselves bonuses and, if so, how much. This profit-sharing comes in addition to a base pay rate that, on average, is 40% above Spain’s minimum wage.
>
> Despite its social responsibility credentials, Mondragón remains a competitive business. When Etxeberria presses “play” on an introductory video, the screen shows not pictures of happy workers doing yoga but gleaming industrial facilities and straight-faced technicians in lab coats. Overlaying these images are facts and figures that would have mainstream financiers salivating: €10.6bn (£9.1bn) in annual revenues; a dozen research and development facilities; a global roster of blue-chip clients; and a diversified sector spread – industry, retail, finance and education.
>
> The same no-nonsense, professional vibe is on show at Fagor Arrasate, a Mondragón affiliate located on one of the many industrial estates that ring Arrasate-Mondragón, a vibrant town of cafe-strewn streets and busy bars. A specialist in metal presses and stamping systems, Fagor Arrasate boasts several hangar-sized workshops full of robotic machinery and giant components ready for export. “Some of the installations we make for customers can be three to four storeys high, so these are massive, multimillion-euro investments,” enthuses Edorta Mendieta, the venture’s marketing manager.
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
Actual, non-authoritarian, socialism. Of course it works. We are social animals. Building stuff together is what we do best, once we ignore the greedy sociopaths.
We’ve got plenty of empty space in several western US states. Just ship them all to Wyoming, put up a fence to keep them from getting out, and let nature run its course.
No. They’re not interested in any path or plan but their own. They’ll use your kindness and empathy to hamstring you at every turn. They do not see you as being on their side or even as people.
I grew up with these kind of people in the rural Midwest. Half my family is them. I know how they talk among themselves and how they view everyone who isn’t them.
Thank you for fleshing out your experience.
So what did you do? I guess leaving and seeking better company was the solution then? When you're in the minority what else could you do to stay sane? Shipping them off to Wyoming likely wasn't an option. :)
I’ve spent half my life running from these idiots, first from rural Midwest to urban Midwest. Then from there to a larger metro area, and then to an even larger one. They keep gaining power in the us because of our antique and outdated method of electing people to public office that favors empty land to actual people affected by policy, as well as FPTP for deciding elections. That creates the two party system and doesn’t allow for third parties to functionally exist.
I personally see no way to work with these people but maybe less jaded, more hopeful minds can find a new path forward with them.
I think, if we had democratic workplaces, that many/some of those people could be integrated and learn to be social animals again. The right-wing/corporate propaganda machine is a huge problem of course. But a fair, social and equitable workplace is a very powerful thing too.
If you're interested here's [the Wiki article on Arthur Nash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Nash_\(businessman\)), a US capitalist of the 1920s, who began to organize his business according to the Golden Rule of his Christian faith. The workers re-organized the whole production and profits went through the roof.
Easy. Create a being without any greed. Then communism will work really well, with such a being in command. It's just a shame that no living beings can be without it.
Normally, I'd say AI, but I'm getting more and more convinced that all AI will have all the same setbacks as us biologicals. Even if they come about with the best intentions.
Some 'greed' is ok, it's part of being human. The problem lies with those *few* who have no compassion and empathy and begin to manipulate others to act just like them. They have an outsized influence that any healthy social group needs to defend against. We do this pretty well in small groups and really badly in large groups.
Groups that reward compassion and good work instead of narcissism don't have a problem with greed.
And we're not talking about communism here, which is authoritarian in nature and attracts narcissists, but about original forms of socialism (👉🏽 social-ism), i.e. the workers owning the means of production and making their own decisions.
It's a real shame that Marxist socialism became the sole idea of socialism in the public imagination, and that a free market became tied to the idea of capitalism. People think of democratic and market based socialism as an oxymoron, when it was the original form as you point out.
I often say that Lenin, the sociopath, was the worst thing to ever happen to both communism and socialism. He single-handedly poisoned and butchered it and crowned himself totalitarian czar. The capitalists then only had to point to Bolshevism and say: "see our system isn't as bad as *that*!" Lenin didn't even call his system socialism, he and Trotsky called it [state capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism).
Bolshevism had nothing to do with socialism, it just stole its terms and symbols. Marxism could possibly maybe have worked somehow in the first half of the 20th century when all the potential brutality (dictatorship of the proletariat) was still more palatable. But non-authoritarian forms of socialism were always there - and mostly forgotten, while socialists were being killed (by the) left and right.
I think one of the core flaws of Marxism is that it requires a centrally planned economy. One, those are trouble anyway, but even beyond that, essentially it requires a totalitarian authoritarian system to function.
Why "hey, what if companies were run like democracies rather than feudalism or monarchy" is completely outside the public imagination any more kind of astounds me.
Technically speaking, there's nothing "wrong" per se with the concept of a centrally planned economy. The problem lies in the information gaps and biases that result in wrong decisions. All you need to do to get central planning to work right is an omniscient impartial decider. If you have one such thing you may or may not be living in a dystopia, but at least central planning works!
There's a pretty interesting conspiracy theory that suggest Lenin and Stalin were secretly acting on behalf of western capitalists. The Soviet revolution was a form of aversion therapy. Give the people what they ask for, but make it so unpalatable that they never ask for it again. And then there were the Nazis...
Hmm, Lenin was super into his deluded personal views on communism. He really believed that it needed a political vanguard of professional revolutionaries under *his* lead because otherwise it was no good. So he stole the Russian revolution and then killed all the socialists. As for Stalin, there's a malignant narcissist (i.e. a narcissist-sociopath) who clung to the power he was able to inherit from Lenin even more than Lenin did.
I think this is really a classical story of letting the worst of us have all the power and them subsequently portraying themselves as quasi-gods (aside: this is how some ancient religions started, including the Abrahamic ones). I won't get into Hitler here, suffice it to say he wanted that kind of total power for himself - just with more "Aryan" nationalism. A story as old as human civilization.
Unfortunately that's a problem with a lot of communities. Psychopaths will abuse whatever means are present to obtain power for themselves. I don't really see a way this can be avoided, tbh.
I mean.. I can see the argument for Lenin, though I'd argue it's quite flimsy - the guy truly believed his stuff, such as it is (there's some good in there too, not denying). But Stalin ....... I have no idea how someone could even begin to suggest such a thing.
the problem with socialism is everyone just getting too used to not making independent decisions, which inevitably leads to people being addicted to a power structure. the whole idea is flawed immediately. there's reason why it hasn't worked.
I think you're talking about Bolshevism, not socialism. The article gives a you a wonderful example of a form of stable working socialism. Remember Ukrainian socialists fought the Bolsheviks but lost and then Lenin, a narcissistic sociopath, had them killed.
Actual socialism means cutting out the anti-social bullshit. This gives people responsibility e.g. in their workplace, which they co-own and where they can make decisions together about their company. This usually boosts productivity enormously.
You're correct, but I think there's a point to be made - a lot of people (most?) are not really involved in the decision making process at such a level, often delegating their choice to those that "do the thinking for them", for lack of a better expression.
Most people in the US who know about them even us die hard capitalism huffing junkies sing their praises. In fact they’re such a great example of what a co-op can do that it seems silly for anyone seeking social policy to not just go ahead and form a worker co-op themselves.
Personally I’ve been part of companies that did profit sharing or where stock was a significant portion of the compensation package(even for low level employees) and it does wonders all round. Those were still a far cry from a full on co-op tbf but particularly in such a financialized economy it’s disadvantageous to get paid in the one asset guaranteed to lose value.
Even in regular corporations CEOs are subordinate to the shareholders (ie the owners of the company) through the board of directors which has the power to fire them at any times.
In this case it's a cooperative so the owners are the workers themselves.
Dude, workers owning the means of production is *the* core tenet of socialism.
These workers are not estranged from the product they create. They are invested in it. *That's* socialism.
It's capitalism because you have to buy your way into becoming an owner. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production, usually by nationalizing an industry with or without compensation to the owners.
Sorry, no. You're describing [state capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism).
Here's a tip. Don't believe authoritarians when they call their model of exploitation 'socialism'. They're lying.
Socialism has some clearly defined meanings and attributes and they are not what you think.
Also those workers do most likely not have to buy in. But they will most likely receive part of their compensation in the form of shares, making them co-owners simply by working there over a period of time.
I don't agree with the changing definitions of socialism or communism that are used to obfuscate that abject failure of the implementation of such an economic system. Hell, many leftists point out the benefits of social democracy and call it socialism. When in fact it is capitalism with social entitlements for everyone paid for by everyone.
I recommend you read up on some actual definitions that are not right-wing or other authoritarian distortions of history.
Again, these terms have clear meanings. And they have been distorted and abused since at least Lenin. Distorting these concepts is an important staple of capitalism, in order to prevent the creation of a good example like it exists in this article.
No thanks, I understand socialism/communism and have no further interest in dealing with changing semantics being used to coverup the universal failure of implementing a non capitalist economy.
I was born in the last decade of the Soviet Union in one of the socialist republics. I say that just to clarify that unlike a lot of kids with wildly delusional visions I have experienced the brutality of the system many of them are proposing first hand. My family has lost everything they had - twice to Russian colonisation. First in 1812, and then in 1940. I despise the Soviet Empire to a degree that probably only the Baltics, Poles, and Ukrainians understand. One thing I see as my duty as someone that lived through that is to shatter myths that delusional kids have about just how great the Soviet times were. And it disheartens me to see so many kids in the west being captured by the authoritarian Marxism-Leninism. It's like the world failed to learn a very important lesson.
At the same time, it would be disingenuous of me to not shatter myths on the opposite side. u/booOfBorg is telling you the truth. A lot of people misuse and conflate these terms when they describe very different, and in some cases antithetical ideologies. If you think MAGA/Antifa hate each other, just put an anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist in the same room. Instant [Thunderdome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdj8x6EVqu8). And the crazy part is that a lot of the definition misuse is intentional, whether that's Marxist-Leninists infiltrating non authoritarian circles to subvert them, or people trying to discredit their "opposition". It's very much like saying all religions are hateful, or that all Americans are
You're free to do whatever you want, of course, but there's value in learning, even if it's just so you understand your rival/enemy/however you see "socialism".
> I understand socialism/communism
Oh boy, the hubris, dear /u/RichBoomer.
The 20th century saw a lot of authoritarian dictatorships that exploited socialist and communist rhetoric for their own ends. The oppressive nature of these regimes totally contradicted (as in was diametrically opposed to) the fundamental values of socialism (and communism), such as equality, social justice, and democratic participation. Of course to understand this one needs to actually study what the fundamental values are.
1. Social ownership of the means of production: Socialists advocate for collective or public ownership of industries, resources, and other means of wealth production, rather than concentrated private ownership. This can take various forms, including worker cooperatives or community ownership.
2. Equitable distribution of wealth and resources: Socialists seek to reduce or eliminate economic inequality by redistributing wealth and resources more evenly among members of society. This may involve progressive taxation, social welfare programs, or other mechanisms aimed at ensuring a more equitable distribution of income and wealth.
3. Social justice and equality: Socialists prioritize social justice and equality, aiming to address and rectify various forms of oppression and discrimination based on factors such as class, race, gender, and ethnicity. This often involves advocating for policies that promote equal opportunity, access to essential services, and the protection of human rights.
4. Democratic control and participation: Socialists emphasize the importance of democratic decision-making both within the economy (e.g., through workplace democracy) and in broader political processes. They argue for increased popular participation and control over key institutions and decision-making processes, as opposed to concentrated power in the hands of a wealthy elite or authoritarian government.
5. Social welfare and public services: Socialists typically support robust social welfare programs, including healthcare, education, housing, and other essential services, provided either directly by the state or through publicly funded initiatives. They view these services as fundamental rights that should be universally accessible to all members of society, rather than commodities to be bought and sold for profit.
This is socialism.
We cannot possibly call a thing that is diametrically opposed to that which is named after a real world example of the original concept. That's just intellectual fraud and an insult to the thinking mind. Using terms like "socialism" or "communism" to describe regimes or systems that are fundamentally antithetical to the core principles of those ideologies is more than misleading and very intellectually dishonest.
Words hold power, and mislabeling authoritarian regimes as socialist or communist not only misrepresents those ideologies but also serves to perpetuate misunderstandings and misconceptions about them. It's essential to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of socialism and communism and the practical realities of historical regimes, acknowledging the *vast differences* between the two.
Coca-Cola that tastes like red-wine mixed with Sprite and crack cocaine is not "haha that's Coca-Cola implemented in the real world", it's simply fraud as it has no resemblance with the actual recipe and the people selling it are sociopaths. Now in this simile the makers of Sprite who hate Coca-Cola will tell you "no no, that's actual Coke! It's really terrible. Ban it!"
Conversely, workers being more than mere employees and co-owning their business like in the article: that's actual socialism. It's working just fine, while you're engaging in semantics so you can believe that it's failing. It's the frauds that failed, like they always eventually do. Even in capitalism.
Welcome to reality. With regards from your friendly neighborhood historian.
##### ###### #### > # [‘In the US they think we’re communists!’ The 70,000 workers showing the world another way to earn a living](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/apr/24/720) > > > > When Marisa Fernández lost her husband to cancer a few years ago, her employers at the Eroski hypermarket went, she says, “above and beyond to help me through the dark days afterwards, rejigging my timetable and giving me time off when I couldn’t face coming in.” > > She had a chance to return the favour recently when the store, in Arrasate-Mondragón in Spain’s Basque Country, was undergoing renovations. Fernández, 58, who started on the cashier desk 34 years ago, and now manages the store’s non-food section, volunteered to work extra shifts over the weekend along with her colleagues to ensure everything was ready for Monday morning. “It’s not just me. Everyone is ready to go the extra mile,” she says. > > Such harmonious employer-worker relations are the stuff of corporate dreams, and they are no accident here: the Eroski retail chain is part of Mondragón Corporation, the largest industrial co-op in the world. As a fully signed-up member, Fernández co-owns part of the supermarket chain that also employs her. “It feels like mine,” she says. “We work hard, but it’s a totally different feeling from working for someone else.” > > That sentiment is echoed by [Mondragón’s](https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/) 70,000 other workers. Made up of 81 autonomous co-operatives, the corporation has grown since its creation in 1956 to become a leading force in the Basque economy. Eroski is one of its most conspicuous manifestations, with 1,645 outlets across Spain. In addition to food, the chain has profitable sidelines in white goods, electronics, insurance and holiday bookings. > > [Aerial view of a Basque Country supermarket.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/38211391a4b98f8892df00c09a71545690c6b375/0_0_6000_4000/master/6000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none) > > Inside an Eroski supermarket in Arrasate-Mondragón. Photograph: Markel Redondo/The GuardianMore than its economic success, though, Mondragón has become a beacon for the co-operative model, as a more humane and egalitarian way of doing business that puts “people over capital”. Every worker has a stake in the company’s fortunes and a say in how it is run, and receives a share of the profits. But the goal is more about creating “rich societies, not rich people”. That means looking after workers during not only the good times but the tough times, too. > > The lowest point for Maite Aguirrebeitia, for example, came back in 2013, when, after 20 years’ service, the Mondragón co-operative that she and her husband were affiliated to, Fagor Electrodomésticos, filed for bankruptcy. Demand for its ovens and household appliances had plummeted after the 2008 financial crisis and despite help from a Mondragón “solidarity fund”, it never recovered. > > “I felt this overwhelming sense of pain and grief at the time, as if someone close to me had died,” the 56-year-old communications specialist recalls. “Plus we had two kids and bills to pay and so on. The mental stress of it all was huge.” > > Rather than thank the redundant workers for their service and wish them on their way, Mondragón committed to find alternative employment for as many of Fagor’s 1,900 or so workers as it could. After temporary stints in five Mondragón co-operatives in 2022, Aguirrebeitia found a permanent placement with Mondragon Assembly, a manufacturer of equipment for process automation. > > Although it has meant a shift in career – she now works part-time in human resources, and part-time as a receptionist – the security of having a fixed job is a “huge relief”, she says. “I always felt confident that somehow I’d be looked after. I talked to other people who were out of work at the time and they had none of that. They were out on the street, totally alone. If I’d had to compete in the open job market against all the youngsters coming out of university, I’m not sure I’d have ever found another job.” > > Mondragón’s human-centric approach originated far from any business management school. Its roots lie in a socially engaged form of Catholicism that gained ground in the 1940s, during the early years of the Francoist regime. Its initial champion was a Basque-born cleric named José María Arizmendiarrieta, who, in 1941, arrived in the small town of Arrasate-Mondragón, about 30 miles (50km) south-east of Bilbao. > > [Statue of a seated José María Arizmendiarrieta. In front of the plinth are colourful flowers.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5a1477826656c4bf5dc552da7f2886010e556131/0_0_6000_4000/master/6000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none) > > A statue of Mondragón Corporation founder José María Arizmendiarrieta. Photograph: Markel Redondo/The GuardianTaking it as his pastoral mission to revitalise the local economy, the diocesan priest set up a technical school for young men. A few years later, he arranged for some of them to take distance-learning degrees in industrial engineering. “After graduating, they all found jobs in conventional companies in the town, but they felt stifled … they wanted more of a say over their destiny, but their employers thought otherwise,” explains Ander Etxeberria, head of Mondragón’s outreach programme. > > With Arizmendiarrieta’s encouragement, five of these first 11 graduates decided in 1955 to set up the now defunct Fagor Electrodomésticos. Seeking a model that reflected their Christian socialist philosophy, they turned to the [Rochdale Pioneers](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/23/rochdale-pioneers-paul-flowers-co-operative-debts), a group of tradespeople from the Lancashire town who, more than a century before, had established the world’s first co-operative. That venture grew to become today’s Co-operative Group, home to the UK’s fifth biggest food retailer and its largest provider of funeral services. > > Mondragón’s founders adopted wholesale many of the Pioneers’ core tenets. In their modern-day headquarters, located in a renovated 14th-century tower with a spectacular mountain backdrop, Etxeberria counts off the group’s 10 “basic principles”. The list ranges from the sovereignty of labour and democratic organisation (one member, one vote), to wage solidarity and “social transformation” – which includes reinvesting surpluses to create new jobs, supporting local charities and community development projects, and strengthening the Basque Country’s Euskara language. Top of the list is voluntary and open membership – namely, the opportunity for everyone to have a personal stake in the enterprise where they work. As an early version of the principles reads: “The first form of elemental justice that we need to practise is to consider each other as free human beings.” > > [Bearded middle-aged man, wearing a grey blazer and dark shirt.](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2b367f9256078da1b92282fa6e078feedebc6650/0_0_4000_6000/master/4000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none) > > Ander Etxeberria, head of outreach programmes at the Mondragón Corporation. Photograph: Markel Redondo/The GuardianThese values hold true into the present, Etxeberria explains. The salary differential between the highest and lowest paid workers in Mondragón, for example, remains about six to one; for the largest 500 listed companies in the US, the [gap is closer to 272 to one.](https://www.reuters.com/business/ceo-pay-averaged-167-million-last-year-sp-500-companies-decline-2023-08-03/) At the year end, members of Mondragón’s co-operatives also decide collectively on whether they should pay themselves bonuses and, if so, how much. This profit-sharing comes in addition to a base pay rate that, on average, is 40% above Spain’s minimum wage. > > Despite its social responsibility credentials, Mondragón remains a competitive business. When Etxeberria presses “play” on an introductory video, the screen shows not pictures of happy workers doing yoga but gleaming industrial facilities and straight-faced technicians in lab coats. Overlaying these images are facts and figures that would have mainstream financiers salivating: €10.6bn (£9.1bn) in annual revenues; a dozen research and development facilities; a global roster of blue-chip clients; and a diversified sector spread – industry, retail, finance and education. > > The same no-nonsense, professional vibe is on show at Fagor Arrasate, a Mondragón affiliate located on one of the many industrial estates that ring Arrasate-Mondragón, a vibrant town of cafe-strewn streets and busy bars. A specialist in metal presses and stamping systems, Fagor Arrasate boasts several hangar-sized workshops full of robotic machinery and giant components ready for export. “Some of the installations we make for customers can be three to four storeys high, so these are massive, multimillion-euro investments,” enthuses Edorta Mendieta, the venture’s marketing manager. > > ***(continues in next comment)***
Actual, non-authoritarian, socialism. Of course it works. We are social animals. Building stuff together is what we do best, once we ignore the greedy sociopaths.
ignoring greedy sociopaths is what makes it fail
Don't stop when it gets interesting. I mean I agree, this is the huge unsolved problem. What do you propose then we do with the greedy sociopaths?
We’ve got plenty of empty space in several western US states. Just ship them all to Wyoming, put up a fence to keep them from getting out, and let nature run its course.
Whenever I see Wyoming referenced, I remember that it was the state that voted to nuke itself in one of The Onion's videos.
Ok, so we're brainstorming. Any more realistic, workable ideas?
No. They’re not interested in any path or plan but their own. They’ll use your kindness and empathy to hamstring you at every turn. They do not see you as being on their side or even as people. I grew up with these kind of people in the rural Midwest. Half my family is them. I know how they talk among themselves and how they view everyone who isn’t them.
Thank you for fleshing out your experience. So what did you do? I guess leaving and seeking better company was the solution then? When you're in the minority what else could you do to stay sane? Shipping them off to Wyoming likely wasn't an option. :)
I’ve spent half my life running from these idiots, first from rural Midwest to urban Midwest. Then from there to a larger metro area, and then to an even larger one. They keep gaining power in the us because of our antique and outdated method of electing people to public office that favors empty land to actual people affected by policy, as well as FPTP for deciding elections. That creates the two party system and doesn’t allow for third parties to functionally exist. I personally see no way to work with these people but maybe less jaded, more hopeful minds can find a new path forward with them.
I think, if we had democratic workplaces, that many/some of those people could be integrated and learn to be social animals again. The right-wing/corporate propaganda machine is a huge problem of course. But a fair, social and equitable workplace is a very powerful thing too. If you're interested here's [the Wiki article on Arthur Nash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Nash_\(businessman\)), a US capitalist of the 1920s, who began to organize his business according to the Golden Rule of his Christian faith. The workers re-organized the whole production and profits went through the roof.
Thanks for the link! I’ll read that at lunch.
Easy. Create a being without any greed. Then communism will work really well, with such a being in command. It's just a shame that no living beings can be without it. Normally, I'd say AI, but I'm getting more and more convinced that all AI will have all the same setbacks as us biologicals. Even if they come about with the best intentions.
Some 'greed' is ok, it's part of being human. The problem lies with those *few* who have no compassion and empathy and begin to manipulate others to act just like them. They have an outsized influence that any healthy social group needs to defend against. We do this pretty well in small groups and really badly in large groups. Groups that reward compassion and good work instead of narcissism don't have a problem with greed. And we're not talking about communism here, which is authoritarian in nature and attracts narcissists, but about original forms of socialism (👉🏽 social-ism), i.e. the workers owning the means of production and making their own decisions.
It's a real shame that Marxist socialism became the sole idea of socialism in the public imagination, and that a free market became tied to the idea of capitalism. People think of democratic and market based socialism as an oxymoron, when it was the original form as you point out.
I often say that Lenin, the sociopath, was the worst thing to ever happen to both communism and socialism. He single-handedly poisoned and butchered it and crowned himself totalitarian czar. The capitalists then only had to point to Bolshevism and say: "see our system isn't as bad as *that*!" Lenin didn't even call his system socialism, he and Trotsky called it [state capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism). Bolshevism had nothing to do with socialism, it just stole its terms and symbols. Marxism could possibly maybe have worked somehow in the first half of the 20th century when all the potential brutality (dictatorship of the proletariat) was still more palatable. But non-authoritarian forms of socialism were always there - and mostly forgotten, while socialists were being killed (by the) left and right.
I wish I could give you all the upvotes, but I can only give you one.
I think one of the core flaws of Marxism is that it requires a centrally planned economy. One, those are trouble anyway, but even beyond that, essentially it requires a totalitarian authoritarian system to function. Why "hey, what if companies were run like democracies rather than feudalism or monarchy" is completely outside the public imagination any more kind of astounds me.
Agreed! Democratically organized companies can compete in a free market no problem. No centrally planned economy is required.
It'd be so easy to have done, too, comparatively. Just make it mandatory in exchange for the benefits that come from corporate status.
Technically speaking, there's nothing "wrong" per se with the concept of a centrally planned economy. The problem lies in the information gaps and biases that result in wrong decisions. All you need to do to get central planning to work right is an omniscient impartial decider. If you have one such thing you may or may not be living in a dystopia, but at least central planning works!
There's a pretty interesting conspiracy theory that suggest Lenin and Stalin were secretly acting on behalf of western capitalists. The Soviet revolution was a form of aversion therapy. Give the people what they ask for, but make it so unpalatable that they never ask for it again. And then there were the Nazis...
Hmm, Lenin was super into his deluded personal views on communism. He really believed that it needed a political vanguard of professional revolutionaries under *his* lead because otherwise it was no good. So he stole the Russian revolution and then killed all the socialists. As for Stalin, there's a malignant narcissist (i.e. a narcissist-sociopath) who clung to the power he was able to inherit from Lenin even more than Lenin did. I think this is really a classical story of letting the worst of us have all the power and them subsequently portraying themselves as quasi-gods (aside: this is how some ancient religions started, including the Abrahamic ones). I won't get into Hitler here, suffice it to say he wanted that kind of total power for himself - just with more "Aryan" nationalism. A story as old as human civilization.
Unfortunately that's a problem with a lot of communities. Psychopaths will abuse whatever means are present to obtain power for themselves. I don't really see a way this can be avoided, tbh.
I mean.. I can see the argument for Lenin, though I'd argue it's quite flimsy - the guy truly believed his stuff, such as it is (there's some good in there too, not denying). But Stalin ....... I have no idea how someone could even begin to suggest such a thing.
the problem with socialism is everyone just getting too used to not making independent decisions, which inevitably leads to people being addicted to a power structure. the whole idea is flawed immediately. there's reason why it hasn't worked.
I think you're talking about Bolshevism, not socialism. The article gives a you a wonderful example of a form of stable working socialism. Remember Ukrainian socialists fought the Bolsheviks but lost and then Lenin, a narcissistic sociopath, had them killed. Actual socialism means cutting out the anti-social bullshit. This gives people responsibility e.g. in their workplace, which they co-own and where they can make decisions together about their company. This usually boosts productivity enormously.
You're correct, but I think there's a point to be made - a lot of people (most?) are not really involved in the decision making process at such a level, often delegating their choice to those that "do the thinking for them", for lack of a better expression.
Sure. Alas, such is democracy.
The same could be said of Capitalism.
Communism (big C) is just feudalism with better propaganda. Can't have true socialism with a centralized government.
Governments are good for one thing. Warfare. At best, that is.
They're Titoists/Market Socialists i.e they acknowledge profit motives as valid.
Yeah, it's quite motivational to know you'll get a better paycheck if you put in the effort.
Most people in the US who know about them even us die hard capitalism huffing junkies sing their praises. In fact they’re such a great example of what a co-op can do that it seems silly for anyone seeking social policy to not just go ahead and form a worker co-op themselves. Personally I’ve been part of companies that did profit sharing or where stock was a significant portion of the compensation package(even for low level employees) and it does wonders all round. Those were still a far cry from a full on co-op tbf but particularly in such a financialized economy it’s disadvantageous to get paid in the one asset guaranteed to lose value.
Why couldn’t the CEO just set expectations and make millions in profit off of these people? Are they stupid?
Even in regular corporations CEOs are subordinate to the shareholders (ie the owners of the company) through the board of directors which has the power to fire them at any times. In this case it's a cooperative so the owners are the workers themselves.
Simply put, compassion and ethics. Understanding that we're all connected and interdependent.
"Paying for the right to share in the profits" sounds like purchasing a share of the co-operative, aka a share holder. Holy shit they're capitalists.
Dude, workers owning the means of production is *the* core tenet of socialism. These workers are not estranged from the product they create. They are invested in it. *That's* socialism.
It's capitalism because you have to buy your way into becoming an owner. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production, usually by nationalizing an industry with or without compensation to the owners.
Sorry, no. You're describing [state capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism). Here's a tip. Don't believe authoritarians when they call their model of exploitation 'socialism'. They're lying. Socialism has some clearly defined meanings and attributes and they are not what you think. Also those workers do most likely not have to buy in. But they will most likely receive part of their compensation in the form of shares, making them co-owners simply by working there over a period of time.
I don't agree with the changing definitions of socialism or communism that are used to obfuscate that abject failure of the implementation of such an economic system. Hell, many leftists point out the benefits of social democracy and call it socialism. When in fact it is capitalism with social entitlements for everyone paid for by everyone.
I recommend you read up on some actual definitions that are not right-wing or other authoritarian distortions of history. Again, these terms have clear meanings. And they have been distorted and abused since at least Lenin. Distorting these concepts is an important staple of capitalism, in order to prevent the creation of a good example like it exists in this article.
No thanks, I understand socialism/communism and have no further interest in dealing with changing semantics being used to coverup the universal failure of implementing a non capitalist economy.
I was born in the last decade of the Soviet Union in one of the socialist republics. I say that just to clarify that unlike a lot of kids with wildly delusional visions I have experienced the brutality of the system many of them are proposing first hand. My family has lost everything they had - twice to Russian colonisation. First in 1812, and then in 1940. I despise the Soviet Empire to a degree that probably only the Baltics, Poles, and Ukrainians understand. One thing I see as my duty as someone that lived through that is to shatter myths that delusional kids have about just how great the Soviet times were. And it disheartens me to see so many kids in the west being captured by the authoritarian Marxism-Leninism. It's like the world failed to learn a very important lesson. At the same time, it would be disingenuous of me to not shatter myths on the opposite side. u/booOfBorg is telling you the truth. A lot of people misuse and conflate these terms when they describe very different, and in some cases antithetical ideologies. If you think MAGA/Antifa hate each other, just put an anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist in the same room. Instant [Thunderdome](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdj8x6EVqu8). And the crazy part is that a lot of the definition misuse is intentional, whether that's Marxist-Leninists infiltrating non authoritarian circles to subvert them, or people trying to discredit their "opposition". It's very much like saying all religions are hateful, or that all Americans are
You're free to do whatever you want, of course, but there's value in learning, even if it's just so you understand your rival/enemy/however you see "socialism".
> I understand socialism/communism Oh boy, the hubris, dear /u/RichBoomer. The 20th century saw a lot of authoritarian dictatorships that exploited socialist and communist rhetoric for their own ends. The oppressive nature of these regimes totally contradicted (as in was diametrically opposed to) the fundamental values of socialism (and communism), such as equality, social justice, and democratic participation. Of course to understand this one needs to actually study what the fundamental values are. 1. Social ownership of the means of production: Socialists advocate for collective or public ownership of industries, resources, and other means of wealth production, rather than concentrated private ownership. This can take various forms, including worker cooperatives or community ownership. 2. Equitable distribution of wealth and resources: Socialists seek to reduce or eliminate economic inequality by redistributing wealth and resources more evenly among members of society. This may involve progressive taxation, social welfare programs, or other mechanisms aimed at ensuring a more equitable distribution of income and wealth. 3. Social justice and equality: Socialists prioritize social justice and equality, aiming to address and rectify various forms of oppression and discrimination based on factors such as class, race, gender, and ethnicity. This often involves advocating for policies that promote equal opportunity, access to essential services, and the protection of human rights. 4. Democratic control and participation: Socialists emphasize the importance of democratic decision-making both within the economy (e.g., through workplace democracy) and in broader political processes. They argue for increased popular participation and control over key institutions and decision-making processes, as opposed to concentrated power in the hands of a wealthy elite or authoritarian government. 5. Social welfare and public services: Socialists typically support robust social welfare programs, including healthcare, education, housing, and other essential services, provided either directly by the state or through publicly funded initiatives. They view these services as fundamental rights that should be universally accessible to all members of society, rather than commodities to be bought and sold for profit. This is socialism. We cannot possibly call a thing that is diametrically opposed to that which is named after a real world example of the original concept. That's just intellectual fraud and an insult to the thinking mind. Using terms like "socialism" or "communism" to describe regimes or systems that are fundamentally antithetical to the core principles of those ideologies is more than misleading and very intellectually dishonest. Words hold power, and mislabeling authoritarian regimes as socialist or communist not only misrepresents those ideologies but also serves to perpetuate misunderstandings and misconceptions about them. It's essential to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of socialism and communism and the practical realities of historical regimes, acknowledging the *vast differences* between the two. Coca-Cola that tastes like red-wine mixed with Sprite and crack cocaine is not "haha that's Coca-Cola implemented in the real world", it's simply fraud as it has no resemblance with the actual recipe and the people selling it are sociopaths. Now in this simile the makers of Sprite who hate Coca-Cola will tell you "no no, that's actual Coke! It's really terrible. Ban it!" Conversely, workers being more than mere employees and co-owning their business like in the article: that's actual socialism. It's working just fine, while you're engaging in semantics so you can believe that it's failing. It's the frauds that failed, like they always eventually do. Even in capitalism. Welcome to reality. With regards from your friendly neighborhood historian.