Hacker News Reader

Comment by noobiemcfoob | Hacker News Reader

I tried to start a tech co-op. Ours failed because of a lack of shared definitions on too many topics. What was 'work'. What was 'learning/training'. We could agree on goals, but intermediary steps towards those goals were all over the place.

Without a clear provider of vision and decision, it crumbled. This part is true of any venture, but I think becomes even more critical in a co-op since the authority is necessarily shared.

View on HN

A cooperative can be democratically run but still have a powerful executive figure who is invested with the ability to determine these sorts of things.

I think in broader terms, cooperatives are bound to be less efficient than an equivalent capitalist controlled venture, but that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence for the cooperative.

We did. Even in a hierarchy, an executive's primary role is to build consensus, but in a co-op you're contending with increased ego from the participants. In a hierarchy, not being the executive makes it easier to back down on an issue. In a co-op, part of your mind must see yourself as an owner. In a co-op, every active employee needs at least some degree of CEO-ness. And then you have too many CEOs in the boardroom.

> that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence

Despite my failed attempt at one, I completely agree. To me, the co-op must be the way forward. It's the only likely contender I've found that might bridge capitalism and socialism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com