Mondragon Cooperative Corporation: A superior economic system

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Individual risk is nullified when it comes to public companies. Also, people are often fairly irrational or they make rational decisions at someone else's expense.

I agree with you regarding public companies. They have been given too much power by the state. I'm a little confused by your other statement however, well the 2nd part of it. People do make irrational decisions, that is not even debatable, that's part of being human. But thank God for it, what a bland world to live in, one inhabited only by the rational.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I agree with you regarding public companies. They have been given too much power by the state. I'm a little confused by your other statement however, well the 2nd part of it. People do make irrational decisions, that is not even debatable, that's part of being human. But thank God for it, what a bland world to live in, one inhabited only by the rational.

We're not really in agreement. Do some of their abuses of corporations come from government? Sometimes, but how do you explain interlocking directorates? Probably THE biggest reasons CEO pay are structured poorly and they are not accountable for their actions? When i worked for IBM several years ago, my CEO was on the board of directors of Exxon, he was the director of the board for IBM (how the fuck is that even allowed), and there was an ex-Exxon exec sitting on IBM's board. This is not the work of the government.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
We're not really in agreement. Do some of their abuses of corporations come from government? Sometimes, but how do you explain interlocking directorates? Probably THE biggest reasons CEO pay are structured poorly and they are not accountable for their actions? When i worked for IBM several years ago, my CEO was on the board of directors of Exxon, he was the director of the board for IBM (how the fuck is that even allowed), and there was an ex-Exxon exec sitting on IBM's board. This is not the work of the government.

Why do you think that situation was so?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Why do you think that situation was so?

It's complicated, but LK had a pretty good explanation years ago in terms of stock owners. You would think that investors would revolt in such a case, but you have to remember that the majority of stock is owned by institutional investors... those institutional investors also have other areas of business where they advise and consult for corporations (M&A deals for example), so rocking the boat and punishing the board is not going to cut it when you also want to do other work for them.

Edit: And shit, thanks to those high speed computers that Investment banks installed at Nasdaq and NYSE, aren't most stocks held on average for like 11 seconds or something now?

On the other side of the equation:

Even though boards are supposed to look after stockholders, there's a million reasons why they would put the CEO above them. The board regularly sees the CEO and oft times has a personal connection with him/her. They don't see the stock holder, who is often someone different every second the stock is traded. They are also part of a community of executives/board members that make up the interlock. You don't pamper the CEO? You don't get on anymore boards. Etc. etc. etc.

Take government away and that still is the case.
 
Last edited:

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
There are a number of disincentives for forming a Mondragon Cooperative that I can think of, at least in a greater capitalist setting:

Efficiency of decision-making: Trying to steer the direction of a company (or even a single product of that company's) by committee is a prolonged, inefficient nightmare. Technology has accelerated the ability of companies to take an idea on a drawing board and make it something real, and being first to market is increasingly important.

A company that needs to poll a large number of its workers for their input is going to be at a disadvantage for time, idea security (the more people that know the secret the worse your chances at keeping it) and cohesion. I've taken part in conceptualization of products - though there are exceptions, it's typically not a process you open up to the floor.

Misaligned goals: The goal of a company is to provide a product, not to preserve the numbers of its labour force. (Actually the goal is to make a profit, but generally speaking having the best product leads to that.) What happens to innovation when the goal changes from this? Does a company strive for more sophisticated manufacturing processes if the byproduct of that research is not needing 1,000 of its current workforce, or does that get voted down by those fearful of losing their jobs?

How many of you have been to a communist country and have seen the way a grocery/retail store worked? One person gave you your ticket. One person took your ticket. One person carried your ticket into the back and to begin work on it. You get the idea - with the goal of employing as many workers as possible, efficiency suffered greatly.

It's a nice idea, but ultimately cooperatives of this nature simply can't compete unless the rules of the overall game are changed as well - and I'm not sure I want them to be if the result of massive inefficiency.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
There are a number of disincentives for forming a Mondragon Cooperative that I can think of, at least in a greater capitalist setting:

Efficiency of decision-making: Trying to steer the direction of a company (or even a single product of that company's) by committee is a prolonged, inefficient nightmare. Technology has accelerated the ability of companies to take an idea on a drawing board and make it something real, and being first to market is increasingly important.

A company that needs to poll a large number of its workers for their input is going to be at a disadvantage for time, idea security (the more people that know the secret the worse your chances at keeping it) and cohesion. I've taken part in conceptualization of products - though there are exceptions, it's typically not a process you open up to the floor.

Misaligned goals: The goal of a company is to provide a product, not to preserve the numbers of its labour force. (Actually the goal is to make a profit, but generally speaking having the best product leads to that.) What happens to innovation when the goal changes from this? Does a company strive for more sophisticated manufacturing processes if the byproduct of that research is not needing 1,000 of its current workforce, or does that get voted down by those fearful of losing their jobs?

How many of you have been to a communist country and have seen the way a grocery/retail store worked? One person gave you your ticket. One person took your ticket. One person carried your ticket into the back and to begin work on it. You get the idea - with the goal of employing as many workers as possible, efficiency suffered greatly.

It's a nice idea, but ultimately cooperatives of this nature simply can't compete unless the rules of the overall game are changed as well - and I'm not sure I want them to be if the result of massive inefficiency.

Yet Mondragon is still a multibillion dollar company in many different unrelated areas (education/retail goods/retail stores/capital goods/finance) with a headcount of almost 100K that's been in business since the 1940's/50's. Somehow, such an unwieldy organization didn't fall into beauracracy and get wiped out by competitors who organize under a more 'traditional' way. How many companies do you know that are in that many industries?

Also, Spain isn't a communist country, wtf, mondragon actually has to compete.

edit: just to give you an idea

Mondragon Corporation brings together 122 industrial companies, 6 financial organisations, 14 retailers, 4 research centres, 1 university and 14 insurance companies and international trade services.
 
Last edited:

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Yet Mondragon is still a multibillion dollar company in many different unrelated areas (education/retail goods/retail stores/capital goods/finance) with a headcount of almost 100K that's been in business since the 1940's/50's. Somehow, such an unwieldy organization didn't fall into beauracracy and get wiped out by competitors who organize under a more 'traditional' way. How many companies do you know that are in that many industries?

Also, Spain isn't a communist country, wtf, mondragon actually has to compete.

edit: just to give you an idea

From the additional reading I've done on the subject, it appears that in order to compete globally they have in fact deviated from their stated decision-making model.

Dollars & Cents - Can Coops Go Global? Mondragón Is Trying

The Mondragón cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain form the best-known coop system anywhere, and have inspired emulators the world over. Launched in 1956, the Mondragón complex has grown from a single, five-member coop manufacturing kitchen appliances into a massive enterprise with over 30,000 workers and annual sales of $5 billion. For years its achievements have given many of us in the U.S. coop movement confidence that our enterprises can someday develop on a large scale in all fields of endeavor.

That faith has been shaken, however, by Mondragón's recent deviations from democratic cooperative principles in the name of global competitiveness. To prepare for competition within a unified European market, Mondrag›n's managers say they were forced to centralize decisionmaking in a new corporate structure placed above the individual coops, as well as hire more nonmembers, often in joint ventures with capitalist firms.

These changes bolster arguments of coop critics and stimulate fears among supporters that once a cooperative reaches the size and affluence of Mondragón, it loses its democratic character. It is inevitable, the critics charge, that large co-ops become unaccountable to a disorganized, complacent membership, moving away from worker control toward conventional capitalist practices.

...


Perhaps the most crucial gathering for reorienting Mondragón was held in 1988 with the theme "Facing Up to the European Community." There co-op managers agreed that their enterprises were on a collision course with multinationals because of the type of products they made and considered how to get out of the way. "[W]hen we established our companies we paid no heed to multinational consortiums, nor the Single European Market," the Congress reported.

...


Having committed themselves to competing with the multinationals, the co-ops adopted characteristics of their rivals. Those gathered decided that they needed a quick, centralized system of decision-making to compete in a rapidly changing and complex global market. So by 1990 co-op leaders formed the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (MCC).

MCC operates in a much more centralized manner than co-op complex had under the bank's leadership. Its management structure makes important decisions on, and coordinates, distribution and marketing for all three types of cooperative enterprise—financial, industrial, and retail/distribution. Its trademark, "MCC" is plastered on Mondragón products going out into the global marketplace so they are easily identifiable.

Most controversial is the new multinational supply and distribution network MCC built. MCC became a traditional capitalist employer operating its own plants in low-wage countries like Egypt, Morocco, Mexico, Argentina, Thailand and China. Its employees in these countries are not co-op members. But even within Spain, MCC developed non-co-op businesses, many as joint ventures with capitalist partners, and has been using an increasing number of nonmember workers within their core co-ops as well.

Now about one-third of Mondragón workers are nonmembers, far exceeding the original Mondragón commitment to never employ more than 10% nonmembers. The director of MCC's temporary services cooperative informed me that a co-op can now apply to MCC for permission to employ up to 40% nonmember workers. The managers justify this change by arguing that the increased volatility of the global market requires a more dispensible sector of the workforce.

They also don't really appear to be in that many industries - they seem mostly concentrated in manufacturing, which with its often difficult to automate nature is a natural fit. Retail is another good one and I'd love to see a chain over here run this way - imagine, retail employees who care. And I'd be interested to see how a co-op in technology worked out, as the best of those are usually a bunch of extremely opinionated people who almost begrudgingly work together to make it big.

There seems to be a lot to like about the model, but I can't see it working as-is.