It is clear that larger organizations and smaller organizations have differing strengths and weaknesses. This is obvious when one compares a multinational conglomerate with a corner-store. But the difference between five workers and fifty is much more subtle (although the latter has 1,225 potential dyads, as George Cheney pointed out earlier). And this brings me back to the burning question of what is the point of worker control? As long as one is receiving the fair share of the profits from one's work, why should it matter whether one has to deal with the stress and craziness of being in control of one's livelihood? Why not sacrifice a little bit of control for greater efficiency? Who needs all these damn meetings?
Discussing what constitutes a collective begs the question of why does it matter. There is no consensus on how a collective should function or why, even among many collective-mates. Some see it as a vehicle for social revolution, others see a way to escape from a degrading boss-worker relationship. Still others have no political stance--they just like their job.
For those who do see collectives as activist work, it is important to understand how and why such a form of business supports one's views, and discussion of the various views on the subject can only help strengthen the movement. This seems like a perfect topic for NBN#3 and since I have been pondering this question so much lately, I will have no trouble coming up with a rant to fill the issue. But I hope you will submit articles on this subject.
Next Article