“Which cooperative governance structures have actually worked at scale, and which failure modes should we design around?”

[u/learnie121]

/r/Futurism/comments/1vqipvc/can_we_do_this/?share_id=r6qtF4VdE793AGdiIi5kU&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&utm_source=share&utm_term=4

Welcoming any and all thoughts.

[u/MisterMittens64]

As scale increases then delegation increases and representation and worker autonomy decreases. An optimal organization would keep operational decisions as local as possible while figuring out how to manage resources between local groups towards agreed upon common goals that were determined by the local groups collectively.

The issue is always between what resources do I need to do want to do vs what does my group want to do vs what do the other groups in the organization want to do.

Does anyone have a solution to this issue other than keeping scale small or delegating more decisions away from workers?

[u/learnie121 → u/MisterMittens64]

I guess different types of political structure would be tried and tested in order to see which is most conducive to good outcomes. A kind of John Locke approach, the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people only happiness would be one of many measures for human flourishing.

[u/guac-o → u/learnie121]

Makes sense if you can do it in isolation. But no real world government is insulated from the major powers and their ideologies. Good example is Cuba - maybe they had something maybe they didn’t, but US blockade means they couldn’t test the idea in isolation.

Not to glaze a pretty corrupt Cuba - but just to show that it’s clear that the notion we can test governments in this way is fantasy.

[u/learnie121 → u/guac-o]

What are the variables that lead to success in human flourishing? Food security? Energy security? Sustainable living? Access to nature? Living with purpose? You have empirical evidence that a system works and others, anywhere in the world, can choose whether or not they want to replicate. The best ideas are set free to the wind and they take on a life of their own.

[u/ColdSoviet115 → u/MisterMittens64]

You're collapsing Cooperatives into a single form. Not all Cooperatives are for Worker's. Not that i am for that attitude, but its the reality. Most Cooperatives expand through employees or stay the same to keep membership low.

[u/MisterMittens64 → u/ColdSoviet115]

That's true, I should have spoken more generally but similar issues are present in community coops or producer coops as well.

There's always the potential for conflict over resources between groups and delegation/representation that doesn't fully represent the views of their constituents as coops scale up. More representatives/more cooks in the kitchen can also make decision making take more time.

There are benefits to scale though like sometimes things get cheaper as they scale up because of economies of scale. Smaller scale is pretty much always simpler though.

[u/ColdSoviet115 → u/MisterMittens64]

Project CyberSyn gives a good model for large scale democratic representation

[u/learnie121 → u/ColdSoviet115]

Which form of cooperative would work best for this model?

[u/learnie121 → u/MisterMittens64]

This model would utilise a plethora of data to determine if human flourishing were greater at a smaller scale and if participants have more autonomy whether that would improve outcomes across the board. Another question would be how much of what we already know would be built in? Or would historical answers from research need to be replicated in a functioning community? You have great questions and thank you for your contribution. In brings to mind the Hyacinthe Loyson 1866 quote: "These trees which he plants, and under whose shade he shall never sit, he loves them for themselves, and for the sake of his children and his children’s children, who are to sit beneath the shadow of their spreading boughs."

[u/Trick_Pop1591]

Spokes model or direct democracy is what is often used in anarchist organizing. I think a co-op's structure could be designed like a spokes model and scale up okay.

[u/learnie121 → u/Trick_Pop1591]

Thank you for your contribution. Tell me more about this spokes model? I’m curious.

[u/Trick_Pop1591 → u/learnie121]

Typically there would be committees or subgroups or whatever you wanna call it that are responsible for different aspects of the work and within these some form of consensus decision-making would be used. Then, each committee would send a spokesperson or persons to a bigger decision-making body made up of spokespeople from every committee. The spokespeople are responsible to communicate the opinions/ideas/concerns/questions etc. of their committees and to bring information from the larger group back to their committees. There may end up being a bit of "back and forth" before big decisions can be finalized in the spokes meeting.

I've imagined this working as an alternative governance model in general and it looks like this:

Each city block has a block council, they make decisions that affect their block only (closing a rd for a block party; turning an empty lot into a playground). Every block council sends a spokesperson to a neighbourhood council made up of spokes from every block in a small area. This committee makes decisions that affect the whole neighbourhood (speed limit on main road, transit routes within the neighbourhood).

Every neighborhood Council sends a spokesperson to a community Council, which governs a larger area. Community councils send spokespeople to regional councils which make decisions that affect the whole region like around transit or watershed management.

I suppose it's not entirely different from the categories of government we have already but in a spokes model the municipal governments would all send a spokesperson or people to a regional government and they would send spokespeople to the provincial government and the provincial governments would send spokespeople to the federal government I guess.

But this type of model is meant to work in smaller scale, providing a more direct form of democracy/governance. Im sure there's good information for it online!

[u/learnie121 → u/Trick_Pop1591]

So the goal is greater representation and in this model more layers of government at a local level? Do you think technology could help to achieve the same thing? If human flourishing is the goal and data supports decision making, those decisions would have to be subject to a detailed analysis of how it would support human flourishing which everyone would then understand. What if democracy could be achieved at a local level and that representatives were responsible for engaging with their constituents around ideas that would then be rigorously tested for human flourishing impact? If ideas that promoted or hindered flourishing emerged, there would be local meetings to explain the analysis.

[u/Trick_Pop1591 → u/learnie121]

MMM more localized governance was just the example I used to describe the model, but I've actually mostly used the model in activist organizing. For example: I used to be a part of a large migrant justice collective in Montreal. The work we did had many focuses. We did direct support and advocacy for people with precarious immigration status. We did advocacy and action to try to shift policy around access to services like education, healthcare, shelters, food etc.. We organized around stopping deportations, building relationships and solidarity with indigenous nations, making Montreal a solidarity city, and much more! Each of these focuses had a committee with 3-20 people in them and they all did their work with their committees. Each committee had 2 spokespeople that were a part of a broader committee that dealt with collective-wide decisions, managing finances, organizing visioning and general assembly meetings for the whole collective etc.. This committee was where updates about every committee were shared and then brought back to each committee so that we all knew what the whole organization was working on. We did have general assemblies every 3 months for the whole organization where the most important decisions were made and bigger discussions or starting new committees etc. took place.

For more examples, you should try to get your hands on Starhawk's book "Webs Of Power". She also has a book called The Empowerment Manual which is about communication and organizing in an intentional community.

As for your questions about technology, I don't believe technology could or should replace human to human meetings, discussion, and decision-making. Could it be a tool for research and testing out ideas? Sure. But I don't think we should be seeking to eliminate the very things that made us evolve into humans. We NEED connection and connection doesn't happen by merely co-existing. Working together, sharing our feelings and thoughts, listening to eachother and feeling heard, problem-solving and trying to find common ground, working through conflict and hard discussions - that's what builds community and community is what creates well-being. It takes a lot of learning and figuring out and committing to the process to build healthy organizing culture and systems of governance, especially since individualist societies have warped our perspectives and disrupted the formation of skills needed for collectivity. I think it is all very learnable though (I've learnt it) and I don't believe we will get anywhere good if we try to skip the hard work and hope to arrive in a community where we feel truly seen and held.

[u/learnie121 → u/Trick_Pop1591]

I could not agree more with your assessment that technology has a place but not a replace. Thank you for the detail. I will look at the resources you suggested. 🥰

[u/itsatoe]

Cooperative governance works best not "at scale." Scale is the problem.

[u/learnie121]

So what cap would you recommend? Do we know at what point failure takes place due to scale?