Richard D. Wolff

Worker coops, if implanted in Liberia and built upon ancient traditions of work in Liberian culture, could be the basis for a political movement that could finally confront its neo-colonial status and chart an independent course of development from which it is, as you well put it, blocked. Part of that blockage is the lack of a strongly based social movement able to wage the necessary fights with the foreign powers and their local, domestic partners. And that lack needs an economic mass base which the development of viable worker coops in alliances amongst themselves might provide. The movement beyond capitalism that worker coops signal in the advanced industrial countries has its parallel in the opportunity for people in places like Liberia, to  move in similar ways. Then too, perhaps alliances, and mutual supports among worker coops globally could enable them to hep one another's growth.

That problem would exist (does exist) within capitalist societies too. A socialist society would presumably value and therefore protect each individual's right to change jobs. Indeed, a socialist society would make that easier because it would not link the particular work one does to the income one relies on. Income would in any case be shaped by the social circumstances for workers as a community and not on the individual circumstances of each person. Therefore, in a socialist society it would be necessary to construct medical care facilities to provide universal health care with enough personnel to enable no loss in public health service in the event some percentage of personnel decide to change jobs. And that would be true across the range of work tasks in the society.

The rigid linking of income to one's job is very much a creation of those economic systems (slavery, feudalism and capitalism) which pit a small group of directors (masters, lords, employers) against a large number of subordinated workers (slaves, serfs, employees). That linking has been presented as necessary, universal, etc., which is not true. The linking is a means of controlling the subordinated worker, making him/her work or else losing most or all of their income, the means to reproduce themselves. That kind of control has always been socially dangerous (since it invites and promotes control over the subordinates' minds and bodies in many other ways all too common for centuries) yet sustained because it is what capitalists believe they need to keep their system going.

In a socialist society - at least as I envision a 21st century socialism - that linkage would not be allowed precisely because of its unacceptable control function. No one person should be able to freely withdraw another's income and thus ability to live....that is as grievous an injury as many others (i.e. striking a person, slandering them, etc.) and, again, is just let go because it is needed by the economic system. If people change and wish to change jobs, if people cannot get along well working together, and so on, that can be handled in ways that do not require and should not allow one to deny income to the other. Mechanisms to facilitate job changes with income provided across the time, training, relocation, etc. associated with a job change.

Looking carefully at history, we see no necessary or linear sequence of economic systems. We do see the birth, evolution and death of all systems, but in their deaths, each system can give way to any or all of the other systems (and possibly new ones). Slavery, feudalism, capitalism etc have arisen and passed away giving rise to one another (and still other systems). Capitalism may endure a while longer (even as it is failing growing numbers who turn against it) or it may dissolve into slavery and/or other systems or shore itself up a while longer by partnering with such systems. No fatalistic inherent dynamic dictates any order; it depends on how human beings experience, think through and act upon the systems in which they find themselves.

Yes, there is no problem in considering transnational coops. As with their capitalist counterparts, worker coops spanning countries would need to accommodate the different nations with which they interact and interdepend. Spain's Mondragon Cooperative Corporation - whose Mondragon University offers courses to people on how to start, finance, manage, etc worker coops - offers its experience and courses to people across the world and is itself a transational corporation. Thus it is in a fine position to advise and train others to move in the same directions.

I am not familiar with the term "collective worker cooperative." If it is meant to cover a worker coop that runs democratically - where the key decisions about the enterprise like what, how and where to produce and what to do with the profits are made on the principle of one employee, one vote and majority rules - then it is pretty much the same as a WSDE. However, the WSDE we advocate would not have people on the board of directors who were not also employees just as it would not have employees who were not part of the democratic governance of the enterprise. Yes our website is friendly and solidaristic with all cooperatives (consumer, owner, sales coops and so on) but that is because we see them as steps in the right direction, but not as substitutes for what is most important to us, namely the transition from tom-down, hierarchical capitalist enterprises to worker coops as the basis for a democratized economy.

"B" corporations are a way to protect mildly progressive corporate boards to pursue some social betterment goals without thereby becoming vulnerable to suits from shareholders claiming such boards have violated their fiduciary duties to maximize profits, etc.

As such they are a small step in the right direction, but given capitalism's massive production of inequality, environmental degradation, and social instability they are far too little and too late. Production should never have been subordinated to profit for the few (major shareholders and the boards of directors they select) when the well-being of the many is at stake. That violated the most elementary principles of democracy and risked the social destructiveness that capitalism has imposed on the world for many decades. A transition to a democratic enterprise structure - worker coops or worker self-directed enterprises - is a far more appropriate and adequate response to the dead end of modern capitalism than the "b" corporation.

If I won the lottery, I would do the same with my winnings. Even without a lottery win or an angel (at least so far) we have grown incredibly over the last 5 years. I did my 1-hour radio show, "Economic Update," that was broadcast on one station (WBAI, 99.5 FM, New York City) when we began in March 2011. Today the program is broadcast on 75 radio stations across the US plus two TV stations. When I began my public monthly economic lecture in New York City 7 years ago, we had 20-25 attendees; now, the monthly talks occur in the historic Judson Memorial Church on Washington Square and draw 150 are videotaped and viewed on You Tube by over 100,000 each month. The mass interest in and response to what we are saying and advocating is a proven reality. With more funds, our social impact could and would be immense. So I think we are ready. And thanks for your vote of confidence as well.

Thanks, I will read it. Once small comment: there were big historical shifts in the aftermath of capitalism's Great Depression of the 19309s followed by perhaps the most destructive war in history and characterized by both left-wing and right-wing surges of anti-capitalism. The post 1946 reaction only tolerated the left-over Keynesianism as long as it had no political choice. But while it waited for better political conditions, it actively promoted redirecting the discourses of politics and economics especially. In politics it was all about anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism; and in economics it was all about burying Marx and Keynes in favor of a revival of neoclassical economics. Milton Friedman offered himself as a leader for that revival. He was very well funded.