I’m all for higher minimum wages, unions, paid leaves and other forms of worker protection, but it seems like the most forms of worker protection focus on maintaining a division between an employer(s) who owns the business and the employee who makes money for the business but does not own it. IMO, this division is unethical and exploitative because it denies the worker the full value of their work.
Are there any political or social movements that push for policy or legislation that makes all businesses to be worker owned cooperatives?
The closest to that is Anarcho-Syndicalism, or Market Socialism.
It’s also important to recognize that even in Socialism, a Worker is not going to get the full Value they create, as at least some of this Value would go towards common public services and administration, unless it were entirely and perfectly Anarchist.
Common public services that lift everyone up give the Worker their Value in the form of a stable society and economy in which to live.
Roads are a great example. Yes, I use the roads myself, personally, to get where I want to go and back home again. The places I want to go would be fewer and farther between if there weren’t well-maintained roads and traffic controls. Commerce, in both needs and wants, makes its way via roads, not just to me, but to my neighbors near and far.
Those roads contribute to a safe, comfortable, and just society. I reap the benefits of living in a more safe, more comfortable, and more just society because of them - and I would argue that those benefits have far more Value than the dollars that I pay in taxes for them even now.
When we organize together to pool our efforts in ways that benefit everyone, the return on those efforts is exponentially higher.
Yes, they are beneficial and useful, ie they provide a use-Value, but the wages of a Worker will not reflect the exact input of their labor. Marx elaborates on this in Critique of the Gotha Programme.
"But “all members of society” and “equal right” are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the “undiminished” Lassallean “proceeds of labor”.
Let us take, first of all, the words “proceeds of labor” in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the “undiminished” proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the “distribution” which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
The “undiminished” proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the “diminished” proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
Just as the phrase of the “undiminished” proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the “proceeds of labor” disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase “proceeds of labor”, objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning."
I know this was a wall of text, but it is useful for understanding the underlying makeup of Value, vs what is considered Useful, as they are distinct and separate.
I may have understated a major point:
… I would argue that those benefits have far more Value than the dollars that I pay in taxes for them even now.
When we organize together to pool our efforts in ways that benefit everyone, the return on those efforts is exponentially higher.
When we work together to lift everyone up, we all receive a return that is far greater than the effort we individually put in. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and not just by a smidgeon. No, the outcomes are not always going to be perfect, but by continuing to work together for the common good, in myriad ways, with as many people as possible joining in, we will continue to approach a better existence for everyone.
Yes, generally, my point is specifically referring to the Marxist concept of Value, vs the Marxist concept of Use-Value.
Okay, that’s fair.
Using that terminology then, the Value outlaid to the common good returns a Use-Value that is worth incredibly more than if the Value had been expended individually.
Generally, yes. Workers working in common are more efficient, and as such the Value created by 1 hour of Socially Necessary Labor Time for all of society is higher, which in turn is represented by increased use-value.
I’d think that in an entirely and perfectly Anarchist society the concept of value relations wouldn’t exist as they do today for the idea of where the value ends up to make sense. Can any theory readers point me the right way? In a purely abstract sense, what happens to labor value and use value in a fully collectivist mode of production?
Critique of the Gotha Programme is a Marxist text, not an Anarchist text, but considering we are discussing Use-Value and Exchange-Value, it is extremely useful still.
"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase “proceeds of labor”, objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another."
Value exists as a measure of inputs and outputs, as you cannot have output exceed input. This avoids the chaos of undefined value. Additionally, however, production is no longer directed for profit, ie exchange, but instead to fulfill Use-Values.
Communism (or Marxism more specifically)
Tangential to your post, it was bizarre seeing the rabidly anti-“left” politicians of my state (in Brazil) loudly praising the local culture of cooperativism and proudly signing into law the recognition of it being part of the immaterial culture of the state.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned mutualism, as it sounds like that’s exactly what you’re looking for. Mutualists aim to create an economy of worker cooperatives, and abolish long-term absentee ownership.
It is known as neo-abolitionism, the movement to abolish human rentals, and economic democracy
Here is their website: https://www.abolishhumanrentals.org
David Ellerman developed the underlying arguments against the employer-employee relationship with inspiration from classical laborists. They focus on property rights instead of value as you do. With the property theoretic framing, employers own 100% of the positive and negative result of production while workers as employees get 0%
@workreformThey don’t ALL need to be cooperatives. Enough of them force other businesses to behave. The government could be facilitating this rather than mandating it.
