Mashup Idea: Syndicalist Conglomerates

[DominusNovus]

This is a pure shower thought, so bear with me. But I was thinking about syndicalism and my mind drifted to the zaibatsus and keiretsus of Japan and the chaebols of Korea, types of conglomerates strongly associated with those countries’ economies.

Whether in those countries or anywhere, what if any economy got structured around some major conglomerates that happened to also be owner by the workers, through whatever fashion? Ideally, this would still be a largely free market economy, or else it just becomes one gloss over the usual autocratic tendencies of communism.

There may be be a few such conglomerates (like how in Japan and Korea, there were usually a handful of major players) that would work as effective oligopolies in major sectors, perhaps vertically or horizontally integrated. Either way, there could be interesting tension between workers of different components - if one conglomerate is a mirror of GE, with heavy industry, consumer goods, and financial services, how do the workers of those different sectors view each other and their competing views on how the conglomerate should be run? Or if it is more vertically aligned, how do they regard any perceived problems up or down the supply chain?

 

[durante]

This is a pure shower thought, so bear with me. But I was thinking about syndicalism and my mind drifted to the zaibatsus and keiretsus of Japan and the chaebols of Korea, types of conglomerates strongly associated with those countries’ economies.

Whether in those countries or anywhere, what if any economy got structured around some major conglomerates that happened to also be owner by the workers, through whatever fashion? Ideally, this would still be a largely free market economy, or else it just becomes one gloss over the usual autocratic tendencies of communism.

There may be be a few such conglomerates (like how in Japan and Korea, there were usually a handful of major players) that would work as effective oligopolies in major sectors, perhaps vertically or horizontally integrated. Either way, there could be interesting tension between workers of different components - if one conglomerate is a mirror of GE, with heavy industry, consumer goods, and financial services, how do the workers of those different sectors view each other and their competing views on how the conglomerate should be run? Or if it is more vertically aligned, how do they regard any perceived problems up or down the supply chain?

Are you familiar with Mondragon? It seems to be essentially what you're describing.

 

[DominusNovus]

Are you familiar with Mondragon? It seems to be essentially what you're describing.

Sounds interesting. Now, what would a country whose economy was dominated by such firms look like?

 

[Altzek]

Dystopian cyberpunk but with coops, which would still be dystopian.

Not a nice scenario.

 

[DominusNovus]

Dystopian cyberpunk but with coops, which would still be dystopian.

Not a nice scenario.

Gotta explain how you get from what I said to that.

Note that when I say dominated by, I just mean that there's some major players that tower over the other firms. Why would this be any more dystopian than present day and 20th century Japan/S. Korea if said conglomerates were worker co-ops in some fashion, rather than owned by oligarchic dynasties?

 

[Nivek]

This is a pure shower thought, so bear with me. But I was thinking about syndicalism and my mind drifted to the zaibatsus and keiretsus of Japan and the chaebols of Korea, types of conglomerates strongly associated with those countries’ economies.

Techically speaking..that would be a natural evolution Syndicalism, as the trade union itself(more imporant the nomenklatura/intelligesia) control the economical sector and lead the workers into it. LIke the ZKC of east asia just with more 'egalitarian' ownership

 

[Altzek]

Gotta explain how you get from what I said to that.

Note that when I say dominated by, I just mean that there's some major players that tower over the other firms. Why would this be any more dystopian than present day and 20th century Japan/S. Korea if said conglomerates were worker co-ops in some fashion, rather than owned by oligarchic dynasties?

Worker ownership doesn't change the fundamental fact that, as atomized entities, they're bound to compete against each other and maximize profits at all costs (no pun intended).
In practice, this wouldn't make them any less exploitative than some cyberpunk megacorp or, for that matter, any modern-day corporation since we're already well on our ways towards a cyberpunk dystopia.
Give each employee a share of the company, give it a board made of them or their representatives, what happens? Best case they get to choose their wages, but the point of your argument is, I guess, to eliminate exploitation, which means eliminating wages. But since the company is driven by profit (and couldn't possibly not be so, since it is an atomized entity that's forced to compete against others, whether private, cooperative or state-owned, to survive), whatever value the employees will produce will have to be devolved to the growth of the company rather than their own use.
If you want to pull off an anti-capitalist argument, well, markets and exploitation existed before capitalism and private property and might as well exist without it, private ownership doesn't define them, it just organizes them in a certain way.

Besides, the more employees the company hires, the less the wages will be, which could be minimized by optimizing production but the key word here is minimized. Inevitably, this will mean increased competition with others to maximize profits and get better individual dividends.
They could choose not to hire new manpower, but then they'll just have to work longer shifts and... you get it. It's a dog biting his tail.
It doesn't resolve any of the issues companies have in a market environment.

 

[Twiggierjet]

A pretty interesting idea. I've tried writing some stuff to explore it in some scenarios but it never quite worked out.

 

[DominusNovus]

Techically speaking..that would be a natural evolution Syndicalism, as the trade union itself(more imporant the nomenklatura/intelligesia) control the economical sector and lead the workers into it. LIke the ZKC of east asia just with more 'egalitarian' ownership

It is my understanding that syndicalism proposes doing away with the competition, so that all these firms are owned by the same union. In my proposal, they’re still competing, at least nominally. That said, oligopolies tend to love gentlemen’s agreements.

 

[saluto]

Back in the early 1900s Syndicalists were supportive of the move towards private sector monopolies because they thought it’d make them easier to take over during a General Strike.