Crabs in a [capitalist] bucket
Growing up, I heard the colorful
phrase “like crabs in a bucket” used to describe the way as poor
people, we are prone to keeping each other down. The analogy is that as peop=
le,
when we find ourselves in a bad situation or experiencing the feeling of bei=
ng
deprived of what we need, we act not in our own interests, but against
the interests of another person. With crabs in a literal bucket or barrel, n=
o
singular crab can escape their trap because of a seething repressive force
coming from below, as individual crabs pull one another back down into the
bucket.
We
project upon the crabs in this analogy a peculiar desire on their part to ke=
ep
each other down. I’m not a crab so I can’t tell you, but I know
that when crabs aren’t in a bucket, they don’t seem to go
out of their way to just hassle each other, so my feeling is that the proble=
m
isn’t the crabs, but rather the problem is the bucket. The bucket
wasn’t constructed with the success of the crabs in mind, it is just a
tool for fishermen who profit off of crabs.
In
psychology, they like to refer to it quite sophisticatedly as the “crab in a barrel up without dragging others down.
Competition, goes the logic, isn’t a matter of doing your best; it is =
a
matter of besting your competition, and what this message boils down into is
that our economy is a zero-sum-game.
If
you open a coffee shop, the first step is to take business and profit=
s
from others. If your company gains “market share,” then in time
you’ll have crushed your competition—maybe you buy them out and
they work for you. Ultimately your success is measured by not having to do t=
he
regular work anymore, and instead you look at the big picture of how to move
into other communities, compete with (take profits from) their local
coffee shops or maybe buy them out and make them “work for
you.” Because you have s=
o
effectively dragged down other people, you treat yourself to =
a
“cut” of the wealth that they generate.
It
seems pretty clear that nobody wants to be stuck in the bottom of an extract=
ive
economic system. it also seems clear to me that the root problem isn’t how people
that are being exploited act out while in that
bucket, the problem is that bucket of zero-sum-capitalism. As Native Hawaiian carver and tea=
cher
Sam Ka’ai notes about the crabs-in-a-bucke=
t
scenario, “The trouble is that the bucket is galvanized; if it was a
basket they crawl in and crawl out… I don’t think it’s the
fault of the crabs as it is the fault of the environment.” (quoted in =
Native Men Remade: Gender and Nation in Contemporary
In the quote above, Kai’ai addresses patterns of distrust and confli=
ct
between men in Kanaka Maoli communities. For them, their bucket is the illeg=
al
military occupation of the kingdom of Hawai’i, and they are rational
individuals dealing with an entirely irrational situation.
When I first came across this quote=
,
it was like a light suddenly went on in my mind and made me think of the
analogy in a new way. When I was growing up, I hated the saying because I fe=
lt
like it reduced the struggle of generational poverty into an animal analogy.
When I suddenly thought about crabs in a basket, and imagined them all just
easily leaving to do the things that they needed to do to live satisfying
lives, I realized that analogy isn’t saying that the true nature of cr=
abs
or people is to drag each other down, but instead that the nature of being
trapped in an unnatural structure, will make you act in opposition to your
nature.
So
what is normal when the bucket is gone? For several years I worked in a kitc=
hen
doing back of house production for a delicatessen. On a given day we would h=
ave
6-8 people on shift if we had the payroll available. However nine times out =
of
ten our hours were cut, and none of us could get the 40hours a week we each =
needed,
and it felt like we were always behind—until that is, our kitchen mana=
ger
walked out. Suddenly we had the same team that had been doing all the work, =
but
without the manager who was being paid twice what we were and clocking
unlimited overtime trying to “save” the business, now payroll wa=
s
no problem and we were actually getting ahead. Things began to run so smooth=
ly
that replacing the kitchen manager became a low priority.
Normal for us became working hard <=
i>for
each other, instead of to avoid getting yelled at. After we’=
;d
taken care of all the deep cleaning projects we
started adding more exciting items to the deli case because we had time to c=
ook
from scratch. For about five months moral was up, everyone was taking home m=
ore
money, and productivity had never been higher. We made schedules collectivel=
y,
finding compromises that let each person have the shifts and days off that l=
et
them balance school, family and life. Ultimately the only reason we needed a
new “boss”
was because it was corporate policy to get the position filled. And perhaps =
it
would also be an embarrassment to their leadership expertise if word spread
that cooks could run a kitchen without a manager.
The
idea that workplaces must reflect particular patterns of power and profit ha=
s
been normalized but that doesn’t make it normal. Through-out
history and around the world, there are different ideologies which inform how
people work together. Ubuntu is a Nguni Bantu word which carrie=
s
the meaning that “the benefits and burdens of the community must be
shared in such a way that no one is prejudiced”. African Scholars cont=
end
that similar philosophies are common across the African continent, found in
practice in such social institutions as the ubuhede system of cooperation in Rwanda which enjoys a high lev=
el
of continued value, even finding a place in the Rwandan national plan for
eliminating extreme poverty. This spirit of cooperation is one of many cultu=
ral
survivals which has continued through the Diaspora.
Looking at Jessica =
Gordon Nembhard’s comparison between the 1880s and the 1930s, it =
is
easy to see similarities to what members of historically marginalized
communities faced then and what is occurring now as communities of Color bea=
r
the brunt of the economic crisis and racist political structures.
&=
nbsp; Wor=
ker-owned businesses were an essential
part of historic strategies to gain equitable employment while providing goo=
ds
and services to neighbors within historically underserved communities,
and can be just as important today for increasing resiliency in local
economies and resisting displacement as racial wage-gaps push long time residents out of their homes.
Across Colorado, the worker ownersh=
ip
model is gaining allies as it demonstrates that they are not only better for
workers, but more productive and less likely to fail than conventional
enterprises. Even Pointing to stagnating wages for many Colorado
workers Governor Polis is a supporter of cooperative economics as a tool to le=
t
Coloradoans who help businesses create wealth share directly in the profits.=
In 2019 he launched the Commission on
Employee Ownership for the purpose of offering support and education to busines=
ses
considering conversion; the commission is also committed to working to make =
the
business landscape more hospitable to those interested in starting employee
owned enterprises.Cooperatives also challenge the ide=
a
that you have to “compete”
to win, in fact one of the =
seven
fundamental principles of cooperatives is cooperation between cooperatives. Rather than try to
run each other out of business or jealously guard their “secret<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",ser=
if;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"'>” to success, for cooperative=
s,
their “secret”
and competitive advantage is the commitment to cooperate. A worker-owned
business is every bit as able to thrive in a capitalist economy and bring
profit to its owners as a conventional business; the key difference is that =
the
owners, the ones who make the “big” decisions and take home the
profits are the same people punching the clock and putting in the 9-to-5.
That said, managing a worker co-op =
is
not all fun and games, business decisions aren’t always easy, and
there’s no road map that will take a dozen people with different needs
and opinions to the utopia of consensus without some hard compromises along =
the
way. But the facts
support the effectiveness of this strategy. Without the artificial limitatio=
ns
of that old bucket and the rhetoric of winners and losers, more people are
remembering this other way of being human and being a capitalist.
&=
nbsp; Wha=
t
can cooperation between cooperatives look like in a healthy and thriving co-=
op
ecosystem? Let’s=
go
back to the coffee shop example. This time, the coffee shop is a worker owne=
d
enterprise which is committed to applying the 7 Co-op Principles to their business strategy. The fi=
ve
worker members have identified a need in their community for a coffee shop, =
and
after a period of planning, saving, and reaching out to other cooperatives f=
or
advice on structuring their by-laws, choosing their tax structure, and
identifying potential options for financing, their café called
“Shared Spaces” is born.
Part of their mission is to create =
a
space that incubates other community cooperative startups by recognizing tha=
t
they don’t need exclusive use of every part of their building all the
time. Soon after opening, two new worker cooperatives grow out of the kitche=
n
of Shared Spaces a bakery made up of two worker owners, and three wor=
ker
owners who run a specialty catering business focusing on burritos and soups.
Each of these new co-ops first benefits from the advice and guidance of the
owners of shared space, and then they reach an agreement to incubate their
kitchen for six months, paying an amount that is proportionate to their
revenue—providing much needed support during a critical time in a smal=
l
business’s development. During this time each builds their
customer base, selling to near-by businesses including a local museum who ha=
s
pledged to source 30% of their annual catering from local small businesses. =
The
café can purchase the food that they serve from these two start-ups
which makes them and their customers happy.
Shared
Spaces can soon cut their overhead expenses when the two new co-ops finish
their incubation period and all ten individuals agree upon an equitable way =
of
sharing costs based on their use and needs of the space. The three worker
cooperatives decide to become partners in purchasing the property that Share=
d
Spaces had been leasing and developing a system of equity for future equipme=
nt
purchases. During this time, Shared Spaces has become the home of a communit=
y
free school. Individuals meet to exchange skills or to practice skills
together, including a once a month co-op 101 course and a once a month
community meeting where neighborhood needs, and concerns are voiced and
discussed. This space not only
serves to identify new enterprises that will create jobs and meet needs of t=
he
residents, but conversations begin about dismantling the institutions that a=
re
exploiting their residents. Soon, inspired by the African and Caribbean syst=
em
of small-scale lending Sou Sou, community
members decide to explore the feasibility of a cooperative financial
institution that would replace the payday loan franchises that had been gett=
ing
rich off of households facing emergencies while living paycheck-to-paycheck.=
This
is just a hypothetical window into how the co-op principles inform a differe=
nt
and effective way of doing business. While it might sound overly optimistic =
to
imagine a future like this, we have to remember that the “bucket”=
;
of our existing economy only exists because people with power actively imagi=
ne
it as the only option (or one of few options) for our shared future. We must
imagine alternatives rooted in self-help and mutual aid =
if
we want to create an economy that more completely serves all of us. <=
/p>