Interesting stuff.
I have two thoughts / questions.
-
This seems rather different to Kautsky’s suggestion of breaking up monopolies and forcefully returning to smaller producers. Lenin ridiculed that, arguing that the small producers would simply band together and create new monopolies to stay competitive. Coops could overcome that because, I assume, they work on a different logic, even if there are elements of the commodity form within coops. Is there a danger that a coop will grow so large that it will be able to challenge the current state, creating a struggle between two conceptions of a dictatorship of the proletariat?
-
China has erected defences against corruption and US meddling. It seems to have been rather successful. By shifting to smaller coops in Vietnam, does Vietnam risk fragmenting its state power, making it easier for outsiders (mainly western actors) to infiltrate and sabotage?
Yeah, I think the key difference with coops is the wealth distribution and the decision power. Since it’s the workers who own the coops, they decide how the coop operates and they’re the direct beneficiaries of the profits generated by the coop.
Situations where I’m skeptical regarding coop model is in the areas that need to be serviced regardless of the financial incentive. For example, something like healthcare simply needs to be provided regardless of whether it’s profitable to do so or not. These areas seem like they’re better served by SOE model where the state eats the cost.
And it remains to be seen regarding the second point, but again I do think that coop model is resilient against foreign influence because you can’t just bribe the boss of the company.
-
