Communism isn't worker ownership of the means of production as a juridical relation/property, it's the abolition of ownership altogether.
Ownership expresses a juridical relation between atomised subjects and objects of production. Communism supersedes this framework, abolishing property relations entirely, as forms of social mediation tied to value. Under capitalism, society is made up of formally equal individuals who confront each other as owners of commodities; the law recognises each individual (or firm/corporation/enterprise) as a separate bearer of rights, atomising human beings into self-contained legal persons. When production is directly social, under communism, the entire distinction between subject and object or right and property loses any meaning, and people become participants in a unified process of social reproduction, collapsing the juridical form.
Worker ownership presupposes these juridical distinctions, discrete enterprises, accounting in value terms, exchange between units, as they still must compete with non-cooperative firms. This already shows you're approaching the issue from the wrong perspective.
This position neglects the necessary development of capital. Worker cooperatives are unable to compete at the scale required by accumulation and therefore fundamentally misunderstand material coercion under capitalism. There are inherent structural constraints to capitalism, meaning an "alternative" can only survive if it doesn't threaten reproduction. Formal equality between enterprises is yet another form of fetishising "objective" social relations which are, in reality, historically determined, across shifts in the mode of production.
Under capitalism, social intercourse (the material exchange between human labour and nature, and the social coordination required to extract, transform, and reintegrate material resources into social life) takes on a specific and determinate form. Labour as a source of value is transient and only counts, and becomes redefined as necessary constantly, after exchange. This prevents any conscious regulation of total social labour time – instead, this coordination is indirect, mediated by exchange, with human labour only becoming socially valid as long as it produces commodities which can be sold (i.e., abstract labour). Value, then, or the amount of socially necessary labour time expressed in a commodity, is the form through which this indirect coordination takes place.
The enforcement of increased labour happens in the factory or office, with the very basis of capitalist social reproduction being the extraction of surplus value through both absolute and relative means (once commodity production becomes dominant, where labour-power itself is a commodity), lengthening the working day in order to maximise labour-value (extraction of surplus through absolute means) and reducing the value of labour-power through gains in productivity, which has no natural ceiling (extraction of surplus through relative means).
Yes, the "invisible hand" of the market exists, but not in the way classical economists posited; workers and individual capitalists don't consciously set or even want faster, or more intense labour, but market competition forces them to act as if they do. Given that the exchange-value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labour time (average time and intensity to produce said commodity as an average across a given industry), if a competitor develops better technology, the average time drops, so to survive, the capitalist has to match this more efficient form. The worker, then, is forced to work faster to keep up.
The firm is a node of value's self-valorisation and expansion, regardless of who manages it. Even democratically run firms (cooperatives) have to compete, accumulate, and discipline labour internally in order to maintain profitability under a society run through generalised commodity production and exchange value being determined by socially necessary labour time, validated through exchange. The functions of a capitalist firm are compelled to re-emerge structurally.
The law of value is a compulsory social relation, not something you can simply "opt out" of through democratic management. Value requires comparison because socially necessary labour time is established only through differentiation and competition. Differentiation and competition each presuppose the other, and their mutual dependence ensures their persistence at an increasingly global scale. Hierarchy then emerges because coordination is mediated in order to maximise surplus and limit labour-power distribution (wages).
The very nature of capitalist social relations (wage labour, commodity production, currency, private property) is that they are tied to surplus extraction. Cooperatives face undercapitalisation, slower accumulation, and the pressure to self-exploit or collapse, making it much more difficult to compete at this scale. Surplus extraction doesn’t require a capitalist personality, only wage labour and commodity production. Workers can collectively enforce surplus extraction on themselves, which is what a cooperative is.
Ownership expresses a juridical relation between atomised subjects and objects of production. Communism supersedes this framework, abolishing property relations entirely, as forms of social mediation tied to value. Under capitalism, society is made up of formally equal individuals who confront each other as owners of commodities; the law recognises each individual (or firm/corporation/enterprise) as a separate bearer of rights, atomising human beings into self-contained legal persons. When production is directly social, under communism, the entire distinction between subject and object or right and property loses any meaning, and people become participants in a unified process of social reproduction, collapsing the juridical form.
Worker ownership presupposes these juridical distinctions, discrete enterprises, accounting in value terms, exchange between units, as they still must compete with non-cooperative firms. This already shows you're approaching the issue from the wrong perspective.
This position neglects the necessary development of capital. Worker cooperatives are unable to compete at the scale required by accumulation and therefore fundamentally misunderstand material coercion under capitalism. There are inherent structural constraints to capitalism, meaning an "alternative" can only survive if it doesn't threaten reproduction. Formal equality between enterprises is yet another form of fetishising "objective" social relations which are, in reality, historically determined, across shifts in the mode of production.
Under capitalism, social intercourse (the material exchange between human labour and nature, and the social coordination required to extract, transform, and reintegrate material resources into social life) takes on a specific and determinate form. Labour as a source of value is transient and only counts, and becomes redefined as necessary constantly, after exchange. This prevents any conscious regulation of total social labour time – instead, this coordination is indirect, mediated by exchange, with human labour only becoming socially valid as long as it produces commodities which can be sold (i.e., abstract labour). Value, then, or the amount of socially necessary labour time expressed in a commodity, is the form through which this indirect coordination takes place.
The enforcement of increased labour happens in the factory or office, with the very basis of capitalist social reproduction being the extraction of surplus value through both absolute and relative means (once commodity production becomes dominant, where labour-power itself is a commodity), lengthening the working day in order to maximise labour-value (extraction of surplus through absolute means) and reducing the value of labour-power through gains in productivity, which has no natural ceiling (extraction of surplus through relative means).
Yes, the "invisible hand" of the market exists, but not in the way classical economists posited; workers and individual capitalists don't consciously set or even want faster, or more intense labour, but market competition forces them to act as if they do. Given that the exchange-value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labour time (average time and intensity to produce said commodity as an average across a given industry), if a competitor develops better technology, the average time drops, so to survive, the capitalist has to match this more efficient form. The worker, then, is forced to work faster to keep up.
The firm is a node of value's self-valorisation and expansion, regardless of who manages it. Even democratically run firms (cooperatives) have to compete, accumulate, and discipline labour internally in order to maintain profitability under a society run through generalised commodity production and exchange value being determined by socially necessary labour time, validated through exchange. The functions of a capitalist firm are compelled to re-emerge structurally.
The law of value is a compulsory social relation, not something you can simply "opt out" of through democratic management. Value requires comparison because socially necessary labour time is established only through differentiation and competition. Differentiation and competition each presuppose the other, and their mutual dependence ensures their persistence at an increasingly global scale. Hierarchy then emerges because coordination is mediated in order to maximise surplus and limit labour-power distribution (wages).
The very nature of capitalist social relations (wage labour, commodity production, currency, private property) is that they are tied to surplus extraction. Cooperatives face undercapitalisation, slower accumulation, and the pressure to self-exploit or collapse, making it much more difficult to compete at this scale. Surplus extraction doesn’t require a capitalist personality, only wage labour and commodity production. Workers can collectively enforce surplus extraction on themselves, which is what a cooperative is.
