Misuse Of Worker Cooperatives

And how they erode individual ownership, becoming another form of company-ownership.

The worker-cooperative works on paper, but it has a lot of inefficiencies in practice. The ultimate goal of a worker cooperative is for those who participated in the labor of producing a good own their production. Creative-ownership in comics has largely refined and improved on the concept. But the original worker-cooperatives has some downsides that make it not worth it.

Much of the issues stem from those you found the cooperative with, for example it can only work if people have an equal voice in participating in the community structure. People who lack communication skills can easily be manipulated by narcissistic individuals that don’t share the same vision as the rest of the members.

Creative-Ownership means something similar, but on an individual level, and thus there is a major thing you generally don’t have to worry about with creator-owned content: you don’t have to generally worry about people taking credit for your stuff. In fact, that is one of the strengths of it. If you produced a graphic novel, you own the product of that labor, and those you produced it with co-own the contents of that production.

On the other hand, a business operated as a cooperative without individual creator-ownership of their own content, runs the risk of outing one of the founders of an organization, while still continuing the series that co-founder produced on their own time, because the concept of individual ownership of their own labor has been eroded.

This is why smaller decentralized magazine publishers should be encouraged over larger-scale cooperatives, with the concept of individual ownership taking precedence over company-ownership ( also called licensed content ), and worker-cooperative ( collective ownership ), because concepts like Free Culture in particular, has historically been used in a manipulative fashion to subvert the original meaning of ownership to mean group ownership, and not individual ownership which tends to not have these problems.

Having a more decentralized framework where individuals own their own goods is less prone to issues like continuation of a series, long after the co-founder has left the building.