University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human Geography SGO2200 Spring 2013 Industrial democracy as crack in global capitalism? The case of Mondragon
by Candidate 178 1 “Suppose you’re in the 18th century. Should you be asking, ‘Which is the best kind of feudalism?’ I mean, that’s all it was. So which is the best kind of feudalism, and slavery, and monarchy and so on and so forth. It just wasn’t the right question. I mean, the right question is, ‘Is there something better?’ Like say, parliamentary democracy. Even though there were no examples of it. There were seeds of it, but no functioning examples. I mean, seeds of it had been developed and usually crushed, as in England, but these were legitimate struggles. And you know, they succeeded. I mean, by now you have parliamentary democracies, which aren’t fantastic but are better than feudalism.” ​
(Noam Chomsky on the World: The Chomsky Sessions 2008) Introduction My first encounter with Mondragon was through the award­nominated novel “2312” by bestselling sci­fi author Kim Stanley Robinson (2012). In the year 2312 humans have colonized the solar system. Earth is in a state of permanent economic and environmental crisis, riddled with wars, oppression and exploitation. Meanwhile, large parts of the solar system are governed democratically in the Mondragon political and economic system. In Robinson’s book, the Mondragon system grew in capitalism, thriving in its free markets, so much so that when time came to colonize the other planets of the solar system, colonists decided to relinquish capitalism, and instead organize in the Mondragon system. This is not a paper about technical economics, but a paper about space and time, and the people who is there and then. In this paper capital will be seen as what lies between space and time (Harvey 1975). Value will be seen as that which lies between potential and realization. Track capital and you track space and time, you track the relations of people who are there and then. This paper tries to use technical economy to say something about a techno­social form that can make life better for people. We will seek to identify that which for us is what parliamentary democracy was for the 18th century people in Chomsky’s example. The paper tries not to speak in terms of left wing and right wing politics, but of social problems and what we can do with them. 2 Research problem Europe is in deep economic crisis, but the company popularly referred to as Mondragon seems to do better than many others. The company organizes in a very specific way, a way in which it claims to be less vulnerable to the chaotic and volatile seas of free market capitalism. At the same time it speaks about security and industrial democracy for its workers, who also happen to be the company owners. The company is the world’s largest producer cooperative group by leaps and bounds (ICA 2011). It is in this writer’s view that the Spanish rate of unemployment, now climbing over 26 percent (Eurostat 2013), makes it very obvious that possible fixes to this crisis is a subject of utmost importance. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) seems to offer an alternative model to the conventional capitalist corporation. In fact, economist Wolff goes as far as proclaiming Mondragon to show us the way out of capitalism (Wolff 2012). This paper will use Holloway’s theory of cracks in capitalism to explore this thesis and analyze the relations between labor and capital in Mondragon. We will see how Mondragon over the last 50 years has changed from being a local cooperative in a valley in the Basque country, to a transnational corporation (TNC) with a presence in large parts of industrial and post­industrial world. The paper will show what this has done for cooperative principles of democracy, cooperation and self­management, and try to answer the underlying questions: Can Mondragon really be a way out of capitalism? If not, then what are the lessons we can take with us from the Mondragon experiment? Theoretical overview Crack in Capitalism This paper will use John Holloways theory of cracks in capitalism as a measuring tool of capital labor relations in Mondragon. Holloway’s theory says that cracks in capitalism are pockets of non­capitalist social relations, what he calls interstitial revolution (Holloway 2010). To give a sufficient understanding of the theory, we will make a trip through one of Holloways great 3 influences, Adorno. In Adorno’s works dialectics are the subordination of the particular to the universal. Dialectics make the particular nothing more than an instance of the universal, whatever might be different is made to be the same. Capitalism is a driving force of the this dialectic, through its mass production of all commodities, from chairs to culture and, of course, labor. “Abstraction, the instrument of enlightenment, stands in the same relationship to objects as fate, whose concept it eradicates: as liquidation. Under the leveling rule of abstraction, which makes everything in nature repeatable, and of industry, for which abstraction prepared the way, the liberated finally themselves become the ‘herd’ (Trupp), which Hegel identified as the outcome of enlightenment.”​
(Horkheimer and Adorno 2002:9) In Hegelian dialectics thesis meets antithesis and progresses into synthesis, a solution. Adorno’s negative dialectics is that synthesis is not progress, not solution, but rather the residue of a contradiction. There is a contradiction between the particular and the universal, so that objects cannot go into their concept without leaving this residue. Dialectical contradictions and their residue are the evidence that concepts do not exhaust their representation. Rational thought will always try to conceptualize, to identify. Negative dialectics is the understanding of rational thought’s shortcomings. This shortcoming is what Adorno calls the “non­identical” (Horkheimer & Adorno 2002). “Non­identity” is the crucial concept Holloway uses in his crack­theory. Holloway (2010) is not seeing capitalism from its stability, but from its contradictions. In economic terms this can be boiled down to an understanding of capitalism as a circuit resting upon the creation of surplus by workers. In capitalism the capitalist’s expenses, including expenses for salaries, are lower than the value added by labor, when the value of the output is realized on the market. This is the basis of capitalism’s logic of maximizing profits through any means necessary. The capitalist logic is what creates alienation, what Holloway calls the abstraction of labor (Holloway 2010). In the marxist view what makes us human is our purposive doing, but in capitalism our purposive doing is turned into abstract or alienated labor. This can be explained in three parts. First the worker does not own neither the product she is working on, nor 4 the means of production she uses to make it. This makes her alienated from her work. Secondly, the product of her work will not be enjoyed for her to see it. When the last bolt is screwed in, off goes the product, and she never sees it again. She never sees her contribution to other people and this makes her alienated to society. Thirdly, having made no real contribution to society, the worker sees that she is little more than an automaton, another cog in the machine. She is only a laborer, but at the same time she is, as showed, alienated from her own work. This is the alienation from oneself (Marx 2005). This is how the capitalist logic, through alienation, or what Holloway calls abstraction of labour, negates subjectivity and objectifies people (Holloway 2010:91). Capitalism leaves no room for the particular, only the universal and abstract remains. The method of the crack is Holloways understanding of critical theory. It is similar to Marx’ critique ad hominem in that it is trying to understand the world not as uncontrollable forces, but as human doing. For Holloway, “we” are the non­identical. “We” are the unconceptualizable subject, the subject against­and­beyond itself. “We” as the non­identical avoid all labeling, it is a transcendental subject. As the logics of profit squeeze us harder and harder, as growth for growth’s sake is destroying our earth, as the walls are closing in on us, we constantly become the non­identical. Cracks are the places in space and time where we become the non­identical. Cracks start when we negate capitalism’s demands and continue with other­doing. “If our struggle is not asymmetrical to capital in its forms, then it simply reproduces capitalist social relations, whatever its content.” (Holloway 2010:19). Only when the negation is followed by other­doing do we struggle for a place where the social relations of capital ceases to be, a proper crack in capitalism. Cracks are temporal and spatial of nature. Holloway speaks about the public outcry, Argentinazo, in Argentina 2001: “A social energy was released, different ways of relating were created. This was a temporal crack in the patterns of domination” (Holloway 2010:30). The cracks are also temporary, getting closed by capitalisms reproduction of itself through its authoritarian structure, the state­finance nexus. For Holloway value is what holds a the capitalist society together, at the same time it is the invisible hand that limits holds us back from being self determinant. When the capitalist maximizes profit or when the worker works for the capitalist, they both serve value. In form of money, value acts as a corrosive and destructive force on 5 cracks. “Money embodies the rationality of capitalism that stands against the non­sense of rebellion” (Holloway 2010:70). The abstraction of labor through money destroys the possibility of self determination, so “our” struggle of doing is the struggle to maintain the momentum of the flow of determination. Method Analytical dimensions I will use this theory of the crack, combined with various concepts from Dicken (2011), to identify relations of production at Mondragon, and in which degree we can talk about democratic control of surplus value and democratic control of the means of production. The paper uses the dimensions of local self­management, democratic control and profit sharing, and is looking for something radically different than the capitalist, tyrannous organizational structure of corporations. This is detailed in the chapter above as self determination. Deep historical analysis will not be in the scope of this paper, but I will seek to identify the general contradictions of capital in Mondragon. In short I will try to identify cracks in capitalism, as alternative techno­social structures, as seeds of something better. Data sources As sources of data we will use the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation’s website (2013), the Fagor website(2013), as well as the articles of Clamp (2003), Macko (2011), Errasti (2003) and Errasti et. al. (2012). While I feel these sources give good data for our purpose, they are second hand data, and this paper is therefore sensitive to their errors and omissions. Company Overview The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is a very different corporation. While many capitalist corporations have nice sounding mission statements, they will all have an end goal of maximizing profits. This is done by the realization of surplus value of labor, through turning 6 inputs to outputs, and selling it to a market (Marx 2005; Dicken 2011). MCC on the other hand is a group of cooperatives, itself operated as a democratic controlled organization, with its principles of localized cooperative ownership and self­management. It explicitly states that capital shall be seen as instrumental, subordinated to the cooperative principles. As Errasti puts it: “The Mondragon cooperatives reflect the concern of combining the basic objectives of a business development in capitalist markets with the use of democratic methods in its organisation, job creation and promotion of its workers in human and professional terms and commitment” (Errasti 2003). This is why MCC’s three point mission statement is quite radical. It is to foster solidarity and the use of democracy in organization and management. Secondly, it should foster participation in management, profits and ownership of their companies, uniting personal, social and business progress. Thirdly, it should foster innovation to become market leaders and further foster co­operation (Mondragon 2013). MCC is a corporation, consisting of many producer cooperatives, democratically controlled by its worker­owners. The profit of the cooperatives are shared between its worker­owners. These worker­owners enjoy a very comprehensive social welfare system, generous retirement plan, invalidity­ and widowhood insurances. The wages are regulated, so that the worker­owners who are in executive positions never make more than a certain ratio to those in the cooperative who do manual labor, with an overall average ratio for the cooperatives at about 5:1 (Wolff 2012). The company structure and transnational architecture of MCC is to some extent unlike any of the models described by Global Shift (Dicken 2011:127). His ideal types of TNC organizations miss the complexity of how MCC is set up. Since 1956 hundreds of cooperatives have been set up under the umbrella of first the Mondragon Group, later the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. Today the MCC consists of 281 companies and cooperatives structured into four areas: Finance, Industry, Distribution and Knowledge (Mondragon 2011). Each cooperative is part of one of many sectoral groups, which in turn is part of one of 14 divisions. Each division is led by an elected Vice President. Together with a president of the Council and the Corporate Center Departmental Managers, the Vice Presidents make up the General Council, which is responsible for the development and application of corporate strategies and objectives. The Standing Committee represents the 14 divisions, and has a mandate from the Cooperative 7 Congress to oversee that its policies is implemented by the General Council. The Standing Committee is also responsible for electing the CEO. The supreme expression of sovereignty and representation of MCC is the Cooperative Congress, with 650 delegates elected from the various cooperatives. Corresponding to traditional businesses’ general meeting, it sets the long term goals and strategies of the company (Mondragon 2013). With a total revenue in excess of 15 billion Euros, MCC is the biggest company in the Basque region, Spain’s fourth largest industrial group, and seventh largest company. At the end of 2011 it employed 83 000 workers. MCC is also a TNC: 15 000 of these workers are abroad, there are production subsidiaries and company offices in 41 countries and sales in more than 150. In the industrial sector, international sales make up for 67 % of total sales (Mondragon 2011). Historic analysis Before the structural crisis of Mondragon Group Its peculiar configuration is a result of its history and geography. After the civil war, followed by the second world war, the whole of Spain was struggling with massive unemployment. General Franco’s resentment of the Basque culture was of course an added problem for the region. The bombing of Guernica is made famous by Picasso’s rendition of it, but the oppression by the fascist dictator was more extensive than that. It ranged from the Basque language being illegal to extensive political persecution and structural violence (Macko 2011; Galtung 1969). In 1941 the priest José María Arizmendiarriet came to the village of Mondragon in the Basque country. Inspired by catholic social thought, he set up a democratically controlled technical school, the Mondragon Eskola Politeknika. From this school emerged 5 students who set up the first production initiative in 1956. They called it ULGOR, an acronym for their last names, and with the guiding hand of José Maria they made it into a company where all workers also were owners. Their initial production was of oil stoves, and today the company, renamed Fagor, is Europe’s fifth largest producer of domestic appliances (Fagor 2013). By 1959 ULGOR was a success and more cooperatives was set up by students from the technical school. Where traditional cooperatives had sought democratic self­management through isolation, the ULGOR founders, 8 guided by José Maria, saw it necessary to link all cooperatives under one organization. This is the birth of the Mondragon Group (Mondragon 2013). Industry grew in the spanish economy. With the expanding production came a need for more capital (MacLeod 1997). This resulted in the establishment of a credit union, the Caja Laboral Popular (CLP). The cooperative savings bank made the savings of local Basques available to the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. To this day CLP is ensuring long­ and short term capital for all the cooperatives. With more capital available, production expanded even quicker. Because of the 500 people limit on cooperatives, expansion has resulted in more cooperatives. By 1970 the number of employees had reached almost 10 000. What made this possible? Maybe it was because of the Basque culture and history, which is very special, or maybe it was because of Franco’s oppression? Maybe it was both, but the point is that now thousands of workers were sharing the profits of their labor and democratically steering their purposive doing. From 1970 autonomy in work tasks were formally secured for people to develop skill, care and knowledge, and now people could also elect their immediate management (Williams 2004). From 1956 to 1982, this cooperative with worker­owners had grown from 24 workers to 18 000, with 90 % also being owners (Clamp 2003). In this period, especially from the 1970s and onwards, the worker­owners of Mondragon were deciding democratically their own social relations, and their own future. Though this model of course had its own problems, this level of self determination makes it so radically different from capitalist social relations and tyrannical corporate structure, that we can call it a crack in capitalism, a break from tyrannical corporate structure. We can say with Holloway that it was something “non­identical”, a place and a time where “[t]he world that does not yet exist displays itself as a world that exists not­yet” (Holloway 2010:31). Structural Crisis and Mondragon Cooperative Corporation Although Mondragon is not a conventional capitalist corporation, it is embedded in a capitalist market, and consequently needs to follow the dynamics of capital (Harvey 1975). All companies in a capitalist market, including Mondragon, need to grow to survive (Marx 2005). In a world with increasingly global flows of capital, it is increasingly demanded that corporations 9 themselves must become global. Dicken says it like this: “Firms are no longer competing largely with national rivals but with firms from across the world. Given these circumstances, therefore, one way of explaining TNCs is simply as a reflection of the ‘normal’ expansionary tendencies of the different ​
circuits of capital” ​
(Dicken 2011:110). The Mondragon Group had prospered together with the European and Spanish economy from its beginning until 1975 (Mondragon 2013). Recession hit the Mondragon cooperatives for real first in 1980. At this time only a few cooperatives produced for an international market, while the rest of the cooperatives struggled in a national market with slowing sales. Conventional corporations had flexibility with their workforce, but MG’s cooperative structure forced it to find other solutions for its workers. Here the size of MG enabled stability for the cooperatives. A variety of measures were taken, among them sending workers back to the cooperative school for retraining, and recycling workers to cooperatives with better profitability. Between July 1980 and February 1981 around 6 % of the total workforce was relocated to different cooperatives (Clamp 2003:24). During the 1980’s massive restructurations were done to save the Mondragon cooperatives in crisis. Fagor, originally ULGOR, had in the 60’s grouped up with other cooperatives in geographical proximity, and set up a pooling of profits and losses. This became a model for how other cooperatives should be restructured into similar groups, but rather than in geographical groups, now they were divided by sectoral lines based on types of products that were produced (Clamp 2003: 26). Several institutional changes like this one were in later years criticized for distancing the cooperatives from their workers, reducing the embeddedness of the cooperatives, but also praised for having saved the cooperatives in difficult times (Errasti 2003). In any case, there was a certain sense of urgency in the situation. The economic climate forced 9 cooperatives to shut down, and another 20 % of the cooperatives temporarily lost financial self­management due to the cooperative’s bank’s, CLP, risk assessments of them (Clamp 2003:25). In the period between 1987 to 1991 the Mondragon Group became the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, a restructuring driven by what Dicken (2011) refers to as external conditions. The lesson learned from the 80’s were that reliance on a single, national market is fragile. As Spain entered the European Economic Community, Mondragon felt it was delayed in its internationalization and that it had to hurry. According to Errasti (2003:5) the situation was so 10 severe that the first priority was to place the cooperative’s businesses on the international market, and then secondly try to find a formulae for which to secure the cooperative principles and values. Mondragon as a multinational Errasti concludes that MCC’s foreign direct investments (FDI) resembles that of a conventional capitalist firm in both objectives and target countries (Errasti 2003:5). Conventional capitalist corporations have two strategies for internationalizing, the option of de­localization and the option of multi­localization. Due to MCC cooperative structure and its embeddedness in the Basque country, it will not fire or relocate its workers across borders, it is then left only with the option of multilocalization. While the multinationalization of MCC started out as market seeking, it eventually became clear that if MCC was to compete with other multinationals, it had to develop multinational production and distribution networks of its own. MCC’s strategy for FDIs has been vertical integration, 60 % in businesses that already are established and 40 % in green field investments (Errasti 2003:3). It’s the different cooperatives under the MCC umbrella that does these FDIs, with the assistance of CLP. MCC has no cooperatives outside of spain, but subsidiaries of the local cooperatives, run like conventional capitalist companies. Errasti (2003) shows that the pay and conditions for workers in the subsidiaries do not depend on them being owned by cooperatives, but is determined by the local pay and conditions in nearby corporations in similar sectors. Relations between parent cooperative and affiliated company, often joint ventures, are centralized. The relationship corresponds to what Dicken calls a global organization model of a TNC, with tight and centralized control of decision­making and knowledge production, together with treatment of overseas operations as “delivery pipelines” (Dicken 2011:131). We will use the Fagor cooperative as an example of this. Fagor is one of the largest cooperatives in MCC, as well as being the continuation of the original ULGOR cooperation founded in 1956. Fagor produces domestic and commercial appliances, and is Europe’s fifth largest domestic appliances producer, competing against firms such as Bosch, Electrolux and Miele (Mondragon 2011). It has 17 subsidiaries around the world, mostly production plants in Africa, South America and Asia. 11 Different Fagor subsidiaries make up a distribution network present in over 100 countries. Its main R&D center is located in the Basque country (Fagor 2013). “For example, the chief executives of the affiliated companies are expatriates appointed by the parent cooperative, the decision­taking process being strongly controlled and the R&D highly centralised. This is what Chakravarthy and Pelmutter refer to as ethnocentric multinationals, whose attitude towards foreign affiliates is rather like that of a mother country towards its colonies.”​
(Errasti et. al. 2012:88) Here lies a contradiction of capital for the MCC. The spanish worker­owners now act as capitalists towards their own colleagues abroad. They rake in the profit from their foreign colleagues’ surplus labor. It’s like the prison guard who is also stuck in the prison day in and day out: Oppressors are not free. The multinational MCC is reproducing capitalist relations and hierarchy internally, both for the worker­owners in spain, and the workers abroad. But the current problems are more extensive. Not even a third of the total workforce are currently owners (Mondragon 2013). This means that over 56 000 of the 85 000 currently employed by MCC are neither part of any democratic processes or profit sharing. MCC claims this is because of its rapid growth, from 25 000 employees in 1992 to 85 000 in 2008. Although the corporation is not comfortable with the high percentage of non­member employees, the percentage has risen from 2003, when it was estimated that 4 out of 10 workers were members (Errasti 2003:7). According to Errasti (2003:8), MCC now faces a new structural crisis because “[t]he old model of enterprise and cooperation is no longer a valid one, and no new one has been thrown up.” The former president of MCC summarizes it like this: “The model we end up with [...] distances itself, to the point of being unrecognisable, from the founding project” (Cancelo sited in Errasti 2003:19). MCC is doing fine by capitalist standards. They pay well, have a good collection of ISO certifications for worker conditions (Mondragon 2013), and what is left of the democratic culture and cooperative structure seems to give them an advantage when it comes to adjusting to the market (Clamp 2003). Engaged workers makes adjustments more effective and cheaper (Dicken 12 2011:200). The same structure seems to help them through the economic crisis in that the MCC, in that it can both recycle its workers and draw capital from its many sectors and markets. The relations between capital and labor in MCC seem better than in conventional capitalist corporations, all the while the corporation is making use of this structure as a competitive advantage. But the days when it was a crack in capitalism are clearly over. It is now reproducing the very relations I was testing if it could combat. Discussion This development seems to support Holloways thesis of cracks being temporary. Currently, less than one third of MCCs workers are controlling the work of everyone employed by MCC. Our paper shows how globalization can act as a way of closing cracks in capitalism. Due to economies of scale MCC certainly couldn’t avoid internationalizing, but could it have done it differently? The problem seems to be that capital flows over borders easier than the more delicate issue of industrial democracy. While states have adjusted their regulation to attract FDIs (Dicken 2011), MCC is struggling to export its cooperative model partly due to regulation troubles, partly due to the urgent need for action created by the structural crisis (Errasti 2003). This failure created new hierarchies of capital, renewed abstraction of labor, and closed the crack. Holloway can be criticized for seeing the world as only black and white. Who is to say it isn’t room within capitalism for political pressure towards industrial democracy and better life for people? There isn’t necessarily a clear line between self determination and non­self determination. Although the dynamics of capital are strong, with greater foresight from the MCC combined with political will to import industrial democracy in the host states, it is not impossible to imagine how MCC could have internationalized to a multinational crack in capitalism. In other words, the fault lies not necessarily in the cooperative structure of MCC, but rather in the lack of management foresight and limiting foreign and international regulations. This does not mean that the current MCC is unimportant or that it’s not better than conventional capitalist methods of organizing production. It still is one of the better capitalist 13 firms in terms of social relations, wage equality and worker security and participation. It does well competitively and does so during crisis. It still has its democratic structure and formalities, but they do not extend beyond the Basque country and Spain. What I am trying to say though, is that MCC is no longer a crack in capitalism. Unless it wants to recreate the conventional capitalist mode of production, it needs to extend its cooperative model and principles globally to all its workers, also to those who work in its subsidiaries. Conclusion In this paper, I have showed how the MCC has previously been what we can with Holloway (2010) call a crack in capitalism, how it managed to negate capitalisms social relations and create something radically different. I have also showed how globalization and MCC’s internationalization closed the crack. Just because the crack was temporary does not mean it was a failure. It stands as a seed of how things can be done differently, how they can be done better. So can Mondragon become a crack again? Its workers must again become owners, they must regain their control of their purposive doing. Holloway thinks this can be done through the negation of capitalism followed by other­doing. Precisely what that means for MCC is a question that will have to wait for another paper. 14 References Chomsky, Noam in “Noam Chomsky on the World: The Chomsky Sessions” 2008 Docurama, transcribed by me Clamp, Christina A. “The Evolution of Management in the M​
ondragon Cooperatives​
” 2003 Southern New Hampshire University accessed through ​
https://www.caseplace.org/pdfs/paper­clamp.pd​
f (Date of access 25.04.2013) Cornforth, Chris “Patterns of Cooperative Management: Beyond the Degeneration Thesis” in Economic and Industrial Democracy November 1995 vol. 16 no. 4, Sage Publications, London Dicken, Peter “Global Shift” 2011 Sage Publications, London Errasti, Anjel “The internationalisation of cooperatives: The case of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation” 2003 Blackwell Publishing, Oxford Errasti, A, Bakaikoa, B and Mendizabal, A “Basque Mondragon Multinationals in the Middle Kingdom” in International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research Vol. 39 2012 IPEDR accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://www.ipedr.com/vol39.htm​
> Eurostat 2013, accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=teilm020&tableSelecti
on=1&plugin=1​
> Fagor 2013, accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://www.fagor.co.uk/about­fagor­i­77.html​
> Johan Galtung “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” in Journal of Peace Research Vol. 6, No. 3 1969, pp. 167­191 ​
Sage Publications, ​
London Harvey, David “The Geography of Capitalist Accumulation. A Reconstruction of Marxian Theory” in Antipode ​
Volume 7, Issue 2 ​
1975​
, ​
pp 9–21, Wiley Online Library, accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467­8330.1975.tb00616.x/abstract​
> Holloway, John “Crack Capitalism” 2010 Pluto Press, London 15 Horkheimer, M. and Adorno T. W. “Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments” 2002, Stanford University Press, Stanford International Co­operation Alliance (ICA) Global 300 report 2011, accessed 27.04.2013 <​
http://ica.coop/en/global­300​
> Macko, Kalyna “The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation” 2011 Pell Scholars and Senior Theses accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://digitalcommons.salve.edu/pell_theses/​
> MacLeod, Greg “From Mondragon to America: Experiments in Community Economic Development” 1997, University College of Cape Bretton Press, Sydney Marx, Karl “Kapitalen” 2005 Forlaget Oktober, Oslo Mondragon 2013, accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://www.mondragon­corporation.com/ENG.aspx​
> Mondragon Cooperative Corporation Yearly Report 2011, MCC, Mondragon Moye, Melissa “Mondragon: Adapting Co­operative Structures to Meet the Demands of a Changing Environment” in Economic and Industrial Democracy May 1993 Sage Publications, London Robinson, Kim Stanley “2312” 2012 Hachette Book Group, New York Williams, Dana, and Rudy Fenwick. "Work Changes within Mondragon" 2004, University of Akron accessed 25.05.2013 <​
http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dw2/papers/mondragon.pdf​
> Wolff, Richard D. “Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way” in Guardian accessed 25.04.2013 <​
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative­capitalism­mondragon​
> 16