re: The Co-operative Model: Mondragon, Reagan, and China

From "Sun Wukong" <>
Date Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:21:10 +0000


Thanks for telling me about "Gung Ho"-- it looks like something worth investigating. I also want to learn more about the Maoist collectives like Nanjiecun. (Have you seen the Nanjiecun website? It's fascinating: I had heard of Huaxicun as belonging to this same category, but the website is starkly different from that of Nanjiecun ( no reference to Mao or to communism in general; it looks remarkably like the Mondragon MCC website (, except that MCC shares are still restricted to cooperators (as far as I'm aware), whereas Huaxicun is listed on the Shenzhen stock exchange.

"Revolutionaries are beautiful monkey kings...
We wield our golden-banded cudgels and use our magic to turn the old world upside down, smash it to pieces, pulverize it, and create chaos!
We are bent on creating a tremendous proletarian uproar,
and hewing out a proletarian new world!"
(Manifesto of the Qinghua University High School Red Guards, 1966)
>From: Jonathan Lassen <> >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: re: The Co-operative Model: Mondragon, Reagan, and China >Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 02:12:00 -0400 (EDT) > >Hi Matt, > >I think I mentioned Gong He (International Committee for the Promotion of Chinese >Industrial Cooperatives) here last year sometime. They now have a website (or at >least I finally found it): > > > >Nanjiecun, Huaxicun, etc. may also qualify? > >There's also an article at CSG on rural coops awaiting translation, if anyone's >intersted: > > >(originally posted to China and the World) > >My own experience in a dining coop at college did indeed lead me to think that >bosses aren't necessary, and I still carry around with me a wealth of knowledge >about bread-baking, how to run a Hobart (ok, maybe not so useful anymore), etc. >Working part-time in the Mariott-run dining service under some real asses only >confirmed this. > >Anyway, I'm thinking that the uptick in the push for cooperatives in China is a >reaction to the dictatorship of competition, and, with un/under-employment at >something like 200 million, also a reaction to the squandering of the real >measure of social wealth: people and their time, even while mountains of >commodities rise up. I see the push for coops as an entirely positive thing. >While in other circumstances calls for coops may have been to defuse >contradiction, I don't see that very much now. > >Cheers, > >Jonathan > >

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security.