Theoretical Explorations and Practical Dilemmas of Western Economic Democracy under the Neoliberal Crisis

Economic democracy, with worker cooperatives as its important vehicle, has long been a key concept and goal of the Western left. In the more than one hundred years since the October Revolution, whether during periods of serious crisis in Western capitalism or after the Soviet socialist system faced severe challenges, Western society has periodically seen a resurgence of discussion and prospects for economic democracy, attempting to position it as a third path transcending the two aforementioned systems. After the capitalist crisis of the 1970s, Western society once saw a fervent discussion of economic democracy models; following the 2008 global financial crisis, a large number of scholars once again placed high hopes on economic democracy models; as the neoliberal crisis and Western political polarization have intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring the theory and practice of economic democracy in which workers are the masters has once again become a hot topic in Western society. For more than half a century, the Mondragon Corporation Cooperative (MCC) in the Basque Country of Spain has served as a testing ground for the concept of economic democracy. The Mondragon Corporation Cooperative, due to its adherence to the cooperative model where workers are the masters, has been favored and reported on by many mainstream Western media outlets, thus becoming an important symbol of the inclusiveness and diversity of Western capitalism. Sorting out the operational model and limitations of the Mondragon model, and seeing through the truth of the “Mondragon myth” beneath the media halo, is an important entry point for testing the reality and limitations of Western economic democracy theory and exposing the apologetic tactics of capitalism.

以工人合作社为重要载体的经济民主一直是西方左翼的重要理念和目标。在十月革命以来的100多年间，无论是西方资本主义遭遇严重危机时期，还是苏联社会主义面临严峻挑战之后，西方社会都会周期性地涌现出对经济民主问题的探讨与展望，试图将经济民主作为一种超越前述两种体系的第三种道路选择。20世纪70年代资本主义危机后，西方社会一度掀起了对经济民主模式的热烈探讨；2008年全球金融危机后，有大批学者再度对经济民主模式寄予厚望；随着新冠疫情后新自由主义危机及西方政治极化的不断加剧，探索工人当家作主的经济民主理论与实践再次成为西方社会的讨论热点。半个多世纪以来，西班牙巴斯克地区的蒙德拉贡联合公司（Mondragon Corportacion Cooperativa， MCC）一直是承载经济民主理念的试验田。蒙德拉贡联合公司因其对工人当家作主的合作社模式的坚守而受到西方诸多主流媒体的青睐和报道，从而成为西方资本主义包容性及多元性的重要象征。梳理蒙德拉贡模式的运作模式及其局限，透视媒体光环之下的“蒙德拉贡神话”的真相，是检验西方经济民主理论的现实性及其局限性、揭露资本主义辩护伎俩的重要切入口。

I. Theoretical Explorations of Economic Democracy by Western Leftist Scholars

一、西方左翼学者对经济民主的理论探索

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, although the “end of history” thesis [1]1 Francis Fukuyama, “The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?” *Foreign Affairs*, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2012. was rampant, many leftist scholars still attempted to think about a third path from the perspective of economic democracy, successively proposing market socialist models with characteristics of economic democracy, trying to offer guidance for the economic transformation of the Soviet and Eastern European countries and prevent them from surrendering to the neoliberal model. In his book *The Future of Socialism*, John Roemer summarized at least seven contemporary market socialist models and divided them into three types: first, the worker self-management model, which is economic democracy at the enterprise level in the usual sense; second, the professional manager governance model, which implements citizen-shareholder-supervised professional manager governance in public enterprises; third, without changing the privatization model of enterprises, granting the public greater power in enterprise decision-making through adjustments to some public policies. In his book *After Occupy: Economic Democracy for the 21st Century*, Tom Malleson summarized the various market socialist models of this period into two categories: “one is public market socialism, where a democratic state manages enterprises and distributes profits equally among the population; the other is self-governing socialism, where workers manage enterprises and distribute equally.” The brief flourishing of market socialist thought in the early 1990s was a product of specific circumstances. Subsequently, under the eager psychology of the former Soviet and Eastern European countries embracing the Western model, neoliberal hegemony overwhelmed all voices of questioning and criticism, including economic democracy, and the capitalist system was regarded as the only direction and choice for historical development.

苏联解体、东欧剧变后，尽管“历史终结论”甚嚣尘上，但很多左翼学者仍尝试从经济民主的角度思考第三种道路选择，纷纷提出带有经济民主特点的市场社会主义模式，试图对苏东国家经济转型提出指导，避免其向新自由主义模式投降。约翰·罗默（John Roemer）在《社会主义的未来》一书中总结了至少七种当代市场社会主义模式，并将这些模式分为三种类型，一是工人自我管理模式，也就是通常意义上的企业层面的经济民主；二是职业经理人治理模式，即在公共企业中实行公民-股东监督下的职业经理人治理；三是在不改变企业私有化模式的前提下，通过一些公共政策的调整赋予民众在企业决策上的更大权力。汤姆·马勒森（Tom Malleson）在《占领之后：21世纪的经济民主》中将该时期的各种市场社会主义模式总结为两类，“一类是公共市场社会主义，由一个民主国家管理企业并将利润在人口中进行平等分配，一类是自我治理社会主义，由工人管理企业并进行平等分配”。市场社会主义思潮在20世纪90年代初期的短暂兴盛是特定背景下的产物。随后，在原苏东各国拥抱西方模式的热切心理之下，新自由主义霸权压倒了包括经济民主在内的一切质疑和批判声音，资本主义制度被视为历史发展的唯一方向和选择。

After the 2008 international financial crisis, the outbreak of the neoliberal crisis brought about a certain revival of leftist thought and its economic democracy proposals. Malleson proposed that after the outbreak of the Occupy Wall Street movement [2]2 John E. Roemer, *A Future for Socialism* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994)., the need to conceive a new model of economic democracy had been placed on the agenda: “If the central task of the 19th and 20th centuries was to achieve political democracy, I suspect the central task of the 21st century is to struggle for economic democracy.” Gar Alperovitz put forward the concept of a “Pluralist Commonwealth,” which emphasizes individual free and pluralistic development on the basis of “wealth democracy”: “The core principle of the Pluralist Commonwealth is that state ownership of wealth will be institutionally transformed into the welfare of the broadest masses of the people.” He confidently declared that his theory of “wealth democracy” could be used as a practical “toolbox” for political leaders. Richard D. Wolff published a series of works, including *Capitalism Hits the Fan*, *Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism*, and *Capitalism’s Crisis Deepens*, discussing how the model of worker self-directed enterprises (WSDEs) can serve as a “treatment” plan for the capitalist crisis. Facing the intensification of the neoliberal crisis after the COVID-19 pandemic, Wolff also attempted to combine his economic theory with an analysis of the Chinese model: “China poses a challenge to the United States and the entire capitalist world; the Chinese model stands in stark contrast to the laissez-faire private capitalist model.”

2008年国际金融危机之后，新自由主义危机的爆发使得左翼思潮及其经济民主方案迎来了某种复兴。马勒森提出，在“占领华尔街”运动爆发后，构思一种新经济民主模式的需要已经提上议事日程，“如果说19世纪和20世纪的中心任务是实现政治民主，我猜想21世纪的中心任务是为经济民主而斗争”。加尔·阿尔佩罗维茨（Gar Alperovitz）则提出了“多元主义共富国”（Pluralist Commonwealth）的设想，即在“财富民主”基础上强调个人的自由多元发展，“多元主义共富国的核心原则是，财富的国家所有权将以制度化的形式最终转变为最广大民众的福利”。他自信地宣称其“财富民主”理论可以作为政要的实践“工具箱”所使用。理查德·沃尔夫（Richard D.Wolff）连续出版了《资本主义大难临头》《工作民主：资本主义的解药》《资本主义危机加深》等一系列著作，论述工人自治型企业模式（worker self-directed enterprises）如何作为资本主义危机的“治疗”方案。面对新冠疫情后新自由主义危机的加剧，沃尔夫也试图将其经济理论与对中国模式的分析相结合，“中国对于美国乃至整个资本主义世界提出了挑战，中国模式与自由放任的私人资本主义模式形成鲜明对比”。

Against the historical backdrop of the rampant “end of history” thesis after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the economic democracy theories proposed by Western leftist scholars played a certain role in ending the hegemony of the “end of history” thesis. Whether it was David Schweickart in the 1990s or Malleson and Wolff in recent years, they all believed that the economic democracy model is a feasible choice to transcend the “end of history” thesis. Schweickart’s book *Against Capitalism* begins by stating that the central task of economic democracy theory is to transcend the “end of history” thesis, and the key link is: “You have to provide a concrete alternative to capitalism, one that is not plagued by the weaknesses of capitalism, or even more serious ones.” Malleson also proposed that economic democracy theory can respond to the so-called “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) [3]3 “Fortune 2020 Change the World,” *Fortune*, August 2020. of the “end of history” thesis. Wolff proposed: “The century-old model of ‘worker self-directed’ enterprises has been revived, redesigned, and practiced, possessing the potential to greatly surpass traditional socialist models; as an alternative to capitalism, it helps to mobilize new leftist movements.” As an alternative to capitalist liberal democracy, the economic democracy proposals of Schweickart, Malleson, Alperovitz, and others are similar in their main architecture, namely, exploring how to achieve democratization at the level of enterprise governance and social investment within the basic framework of a market economy. They generally have three basic characteristics: democratization of the workplace, democratization of the market, and democratization of finance and investment. First, in important productive sectors, the means of production are under social collective ownership, and workers enjoy democratic rights in enterprise management and operation; second, the allocation of consumer goods and private capital investment mainly relies on market regulation; finally, a certain degree of government regulation is implemented to alleviate the anarchic state of the market, including using relevant laws and tax policies as control measures to guide private investment to serve social interests, while effectively utilizing government investment to promote social equality.

在苏联解体、东欧剧变后“历史终结论”甚嚣尘上的历史背景下，西方左翼学者所提出的经济民主理论对于终结“历史终结论”的霸权起到了一定的作用。无论是20世纪90年代的戴维·施韦卡特（David Schweickart），还是近些年的马勒森、沃尔夫等人，他们均认为经济民主模式是超越“历史终结论”的可行性选择。施韦卡特的《反对资本主义》一书开头就提出经济民主理论的中心任务是超越“历史终结论”，关键环节在于，“你得提供资本主义的一个具体的替代物，它不为资本主义所具有的弱点、乃至更为严重的东西所困”。马勒森也提出经济民主理论可以回应所谓“别无选择”的“历史终结论”。沃尔夫则提出：“具有上百年历史的‘工人自治型’企业模式已经得到复兴、重新设计和践行，具备了大大超越传统社会主义模式的潜力，它作为资本主义的一种替代选择有助于动员新的左翼运动。”作为对资本主义自由民主的替代性选择，施韦卡特、马勒森、阿尔佩罗维茨等人的经济民主方案在主要架构上是类似的，即探讨如何在市场经济的基本架构内实现企业治理层面和社会投资层面的民主化。其大体上都具有三大基本特征：工作场所的民主化，市场的民主化，金融和投资的民主化。首先，在重要的生产性领域中生产资料实行社会集体所有制，而工人在企业管理和经营中享有民主权利；其次，在消费品和私人资本投资配置方面主要依赖于市场调节；最后，进行一定程度的政府调控以缓解市场的无政府状态，包括通过相关法律和税收等政策控制手段，引导私人投资为社会利益服务，同时有效利用政府投资以促进社会平等。

Under the domination of neoliberal ideology, government regulation and intervention have been demonized, and calls for democratization of finance and investment have been cold-shouldered by Western media. Consequently, Western discussions on economic democracy have mainly focused on the level of enterprise democracy. Some opponents question the feasibility of enterprise democracy, arguing that it is difficult to balance enterprise democracy with economic efficiency. For example, Francis Fukuyama once responded to Schweickart’s model of economic democracy, claiming that Schweickart’s “argument on two key issues is insufficient: first, how factory management and public investment can avoid serious inefficient allocation of funds; second, how sufficient investment can be generated and entrepreneurial spirit maintained under conditions of unclear property rights.” [1]1 Francis Fukuyama, “The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?” *Foreign Affairs*, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2012. Similar doubts and criticisms also exist among left-wing scholars. For instance, Roemer argues that worker self-managed enterprises tend to favor distribution over accumulation and reinvestment, and their biggest difficulty lies in raising enterprise funds, thus necessitating external financial support. However, this dependence on external funds inevitably erodes workers’ control over the enterprise. [2]2 John E. Roemer, *A Future for Socialism* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994). Historically, worker cooperatives founded and financed by workers themselves have been regarded as an important initiative for workers to practice the concept of economic democracy. For Western theorists of economic democracy, in addition to theoretically defending the economic efficiency of worker self-managed enterprises, their theoretical arguments also need to be supported by successful practical cases. In this sense, the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation, as the world’s largest and long-standing well-functioning worker cooperative, has received consistent attention and praise from Western economic democracy theorists.

在新自由主义意识形态统治下，政府的调控和干预被妖魔化，关于金融和投资民主化的呼吁受到西方媒体的冷遇，因而西方有关经济民主问题的探讨主要集中于企业民主的层面。一些反对者对企业民主的可行性提出质疑，认为企业民主与经济效益之间很难兼顾。例如弗朗西斯·福山曾经对施韦卡特的经济民主方案进行了回应，认为施韦卡特“对两个关键问题的论证并不充分，一是工厂管理以及公共投资怎样避免资金上严重的低效配置，二是产权界定不清晰条件下如何生成足够的投资，并保持企业家精神”。左翼学者之间也有类似的质疑和批评，如罗默认为工人自治型企业更倾向于分配而非积累及再投资，其最大的难题是企业资金筹集的困难，因而必须借助于外部资金的支持，但这种对外部资金的依赖必然会侵蚀工人对于企业的掌控权。一直以来，由工人自己筹资创办的工人合作社被认为是工人践行经济民主理念的重要创举。对于西方经济民主理论家而言，除了在理论上为工人自治型企业的经济效率进行辩护之外，其理论论证还需要实践上的成功案例进行支撑。在这个意义上，作为世界上最大的、长期良好运转的工人合作社，蒙德拉贡联合公司才会受到西方经济民主理论家的一致关注和推崇。

II. Under the Neoliberal Crisis, the Practice of Economic Democracy Becomes a “Deceptive Cloak”

二、新自由主义危机下经济民主实践成为“欺骗外衣”

In recent years, as the drawbacks and negative impacts of neoliberalism have become increasingly apparent, the value of the concept of economic democracy practiced by the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation has been continuously highlighted, thus increasingly becoming a focus of attention and reporting in mainstream Western media. In the “Change the World” list published by *Fortune* magazine in August 2020, Mondragón ranked 11th among the 53 listed companies. The selection criteria for this list are primarily the social impact of the enterprise rather than its business achievements, i.e., “the scope, nature, and durability of the company’s impact on one or more specific areas.” Mondragón was selected because it adheres to the concept of “people first, profit second” while being profitable. [3]3 “Fortune 2020 Change the World,” *Fortune*, August 2020. In late 2020, *The New York Times* published an article titled “The Spanish Basque Cooperative Model That Softens Capitalism,” arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic was a severe test of the principle of “shareholder capitalism.” The principle of maximizing shareholder interests has led to rising social anger, thereby highlighting the superiority of the Mondragón model: “As the world grapples with rising economic inequality, cooperatives are gaining increasing attention as an attractive potential alternative to the global capitalist model. Their explicit goal is to protect workers.” [4]4 “The Spanish Basque Cooperative Model That Softens Capitalism,” *The New York Times*, December 2020. In 2022, *The New Yorker* published an article stating that Mondragón, as the world’s largest cooperative, “this worker-owned conglomerate foreshadows a future alternative to capitalism.” [5]5 “The World’s Largest Worker-Owned Cooperative,” *The New Yorker*, 2022. In 2024, the British *Guardian* published an article titled “70,000 Workers Show the World Another Way to Live,” promoting the historical significance of the Mondragón model, pointing out that “Mondragón has not only achieved economic success but has also become a beacon of the cooperative model, a more humane and equal way of doing business that ‘puts people before capital.’” [6]6 “70,000 Workers Show the World Another Way to Live,” *The Guardian*, 2024. Reviewing various Western media reports, it is evident that they are keen to use keywords with similar meanings such as “alternative” or “another way” to refer to the Mondragón model. The intensive coverage of the worker self-managed enterprise model by Western media has, to some extent, provided a reformist vision for Western societies deeply mired in the neoliberal crisis, serving to alleviate public discontent with capitalism.

近年来，随着新自由主义的弊端和负面影响日益显现，蒙德拉贡联合公司所践行的经济民主理念的价值不断凸显，因而日益成为西方主流媒体关注和报道的焦点。《财富》杂志2020年8月公布的当年度“改变世界”榜单中，蒙德拉贡在53家上榜企业中位列第11位。该榜单的评选标准主要是企业的社会影响而非经营成就，即“公司对一个或多个特定领域影响的范围、性质和持久度”，蒙德拉贡联合公司入选是因为在盈利的基础上坚持“以人为本、利润在后”的理念。《纽约时报》在2020年年底刊文——《柔化资本主义的西班牙巴斯克合作社模式》，提出新冠疫情是对“股东资本主义”原则的严峻考验。股东利益最大化的原则导致社会的愤怒情绪不断加剧，从而反衬出蒙德拉贡模式的优越性，“在世界努力应对经济不平等不断加剧的背景下，合作社作为全球资本主义模式的一种有吸引力的潜在替代选择，正日益受到关注。他们所强调的明确目标是保护工 人”。《纽约客》杂志在2022年发表文章，提出蒙德拉贡作为世界最大的合作社，“这家由工人所有的企业集团预示了未来对资本主义的替代选择”。英国《卫报》也在2024年刊登题为《7万名工人向世界展示了另一条生存道路》的文章，宣扬蒙德拉贡模式的历史意义，指出“蒙德拉贡不仅在经济上取得了成功，还成为合作模式的灯塔，这是一种‘将人置于资本之上’的更人道、更平等的经营方式”。梳理西方媒体的各种报道可以看出，它们都热衷于使用“替代选择”（alternative）或“另一条道路”（another way）等含义相近的关键词来指代蒙德拉贡模式。西方媒体对工人自治型企业模式的密集报道，在一定程度上为深陷新自由主义危机的西方社会提供了一种改良愿景，起到了舒缓大众对资本主义不满情绪的作用。

In fact, the worker cooperative model represented by Mondragón, as a reformist path to resolve the capitalist crisis, is a continuation of nearly 200 years of historical exploration. Marx and Engels conducted in-depth investigations into the worker cooperatives that emerged in their time and gave two seemingly contradictory evaluations. On the one hand, they highly praised their creative value and “excellence in principle,” stating that “no matter how highly we estimate the value of these great social experiments, it is not excessive,” [7]7 Karl Marx, “Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s International Association,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 20 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985), p. 11. and arguing that worker cooperatives signified a major victory of the political economy of labor over the political economy of capital. On the other hand, they also argued that one should not “harbor any illusions about the role of these isolated transformative elements.” [8]8 Karl Marx, “Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 20, p. 189.

事实上，蒙德拉贡所代表的工人合作模式作为解决资本主义危机的一种改良路径，是近200年历史探索的延续。马克思恩格斯曾经对同时代兴起的工人合作社有过深入考察，并给出过两个看似矛盾的评价。一方面，他们高度称赞其创造性价值和“原则上的卓越”，提出“对这些伟大的社会试验的意义不论给予多么高的估价都是不算过分的”，认为工人合作社意味着劳动的政治经济学对资本的政治经济学的重大胜利；另一方面，又提出不应该“对这些孤立的转变要素的作用抱有任何幻想”。

Marx and Engels evaluated the merits and demerits of worker cooperatives at two different levels. First, at the factory level, they praised their great innovation and progress in worker self-management. Under the rule of capitalist private ownership, capitalists possess inviolable “despotic power” within the factories that are their private property. Marx believed that the significance of cooperatives lay in proving the capacity of workers for self-management. In capitalist-owned factories, workers are passively brought together due to the capitalist’s exploitation and are controlled by an alien power, whereas in cooperatives, workers actively unite, thereby eliminating the relations of domination and subordination, oppression and being oppressed between classes. Therefore, cooperative factories became the first breach in the capitalist mode of production: “The opposition between capital and labor is abolished within this factory, although at first only in the form that the workers, as an association, are their own capitalist.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3 (London: Penguin Classics, 1991), p. 571. In capitalist society, the management function of organizing production is often used by capitalists as a pretext to emphasize their own value, attributing the existence value of capitalists to supervising and directing labor. This actually confuses two different management functions, namely, “confusing the management function arising from the nature of the common labor process with that arising from the capitalist, and therefore antagonistic, nature of this process.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1 (London: Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 449. The emergence of cooperatives successfully proved that factory management functions can be undertaken by professional managers who have grown up from among the workers, thus puncturing the myth that “capitalists support workers.” Second, at the overall societal level, they pointed out that the significance of worker cooperatives is very limited. Constrained by factors such as production scale, capital reserves, and technological updates, worker cooperatives can only survive with difficulty in the interstices of the capitalist mode of production. Under the premise that capitalist private ownership remains unchanged, this model “is still confined to the narrow scope of the accidental efforts of individual workers, and thus can neither prevent monopoly power from growing geometrically nor liberate the masses.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “The Civil War in France,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 22 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986), p. 335. Under such conditions, how to handle the relationship between particular interests and the overall interests of society is the core issue that cooperatives must face. To survive in the market, cooperatives must use profit as the baton to organize production and business activities, which turns cooperatives into collective capitalists composed of workers. To safeguard existing interests, workers who are shareholders often vote against expanding the shareholder group, and the particular interests of cooperatives are often inconsistent with the general interests of society. Therefore, only under the premise of social ownership of the means of production can large-scale cooperatives become a prerequisite for the transition to communism, because “society (i.e., first of all the state) must maintain ownership of the means of production, so that the particular interests of the cooperatives cannot override the overall interests of the whole society.” [12]12 Friedrich Engels, “Letter to August Bebel,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 49 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 2001), p. 188.

马克思恩格斯在两个不同层面评价了工人合作社的功过得失。一是在工厂层面，称赞其在工人自我管理方面的伟大创新和进步。在资本主义私有制统治下，资本家在作为其私有财产的工厂内具有不可侵犯的“专制权力”。马克思认为，合作社的意义在于对工人自我管理能力的证明。在资本家所有的工厂中，工人是因为资本家的剥削而被动结合在一起，并被一种异己权力所控制，而合作社中的工人则是主动联合在一起，这就消除了阶级之间的支配与被支配、压迫与被压迫关系。因此，合作工厂成为突破资本主义生产方式的第一个缺口，“资本和劳动之间的对立在这种工厂内已经被扬弃，虽然起初只是在下述形式上被扬弃，即工人作为联合体是他们自己的资本家”。在资本主义社会中，组织生产的管理职能常被资本家用作强调自身价值的托词，他们将资本家的存在价值归结为监督和指挥劳动。这实际上混淆了两种不同的管理职能，即“把从共同的劳动过程的性质产生的管理职能，同从这一过程的资本主义的、从而对抗的性质产生的管理职能混为一谈”。合 作社的出现成功证明，工厂管理职能可以由工人中成长起来的专业管理人员来承担，这就戳破了“资本家养活工人”的神话。二是在社会的整体层面，指出工人合作社的意义非常有限。在生产规模、资本储备、技术更新等方面的限制下，工人合作社只能在资本主义生产方式的缝隙中艰难存活。在资本主义私有制保持不变的前提下，这一模式“仍然限于个别工人的偶然努力的狭隘范围，就始终既不能阻止垄断势力按照几何级数增长，也不能解放群众”。在这种状况下，如何处理特殊利益与社会整体利益之间的关系，是合作社所要面对的核心问题。合作社要在市场上生存，就必须以利润为指挥棒来组织生产和经营活动，这使得合作社成为由工人所组成的集体资本家。为了维护既有的利益，作为股东的工人常常会投票反对股东群体的扩大，合作社的特殊利益与社会普遍利益常常并不一致。因此，只有在生产资料社会所有制的前提下，大规模的合作社才能成为向共产主义过渡的前提条件，因为“使社会（即首先是国家）保持对生产资料的所有权，这样合作社的特殊利益就不可能压过全社会的整个利益”。

Therefore, Marx and Engels believed that the “excellence in principle” of worker cooperatives can only be truly realized on the basis of social ownership. If the progressive significance at the enterprise management level is exaggerated to the level of overall social progress, and illusions are harbored about its prospect of “liberating the masses,” the result will inevitably be that a few successful cooperative enterprises are systematically co-opted by capitalism, becoming symbols that obscure class contradictions and demonstrate capitalist pluralism and tolerance, ultimately degenerating into a “deceptive cloak for reactionary fraud” by the bourgeoisie. [13]13 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 516.

因此，马克思恩格斯认为，工人合作社的“原则上的卓越”只有在社会所有制的基础上才能够真正体现出来。而如果将企业经营层面的进步意义夸大到社会整体进步层面，并对其“解放群众”的前景抱有幻想，其结果必然是少数成功的合作企业被资本主义系统性收编，成为遮蔽阶级矛盾、论证资本主义多元包容的象征物，最终沦为资产阶级“进行反动欺骗的外衣”。

In recent years, the Western media’s praise for the Mondragón model has fully validated Marx’s earlier assertions. In the eyes of mainstream Western media, the Mondragón model has become an important symbol for softening the brutality of capitalism and an ideological tool for defending the legitimacy of capitalism. For example, an article published in 2024 by the American *Christian Science Monitor* pointed out that, against the backdrop of capitalism being increasingly seen as having more disadvantages than advantages, the Mondragón model “represents a different kind of radical capitalist vision… not as a replacement for capitalism, but as a model of capitalism that can create trust, replacing the model of capitalism that exacerbates division.” Of course, amid this “chorus of praise,” scrutiny and questioning of the Mondragón model have always existed. Some researchers have questioned the authenticity and essence of its enterprise democracy model, attempting to puncture this “veil of deception.” Summarizing the historical experiment of “workers being the masters” at the Mondragón Corporation, and objectively assessing its achievements and shortcomings, has become an important entry point for exploring the practical dilemmas of economic democracy theory under the crisis of neoliberalism.

近年来西方媒体对蒙德拉贡模式的推崇，充分验证了马克思当年的论断。在西方主流媒体的笔下，蒙德拉贡模式已经成为柔化资本主义野蛮性的重要象征，成为替资本主义合法性辩护的意识形态工具。如美国《基督教科学箴言报》在2024年刊文指出，在资本主义越来越被认为弊大于利的背景下，蒙德拉贡模式“代表了另一种激进的资本主义愿景……不是作为资本主义的替代者，而是作为一种能够创造信任的资本主义模式，替代那种加剧分裂的资本主义模式”。当然，在这种“一片叫好”的状况下，对于蒙德拉贡模式的审视和质疑也始终存在。一些研究者对其企业民主模式的真实性和本质提出质疑，试图戳破这层“欺骗外衣”。总结蒙德拉贡联合公司“工人当家作主”的历史实验，客观评估其成就及不足，成为探析新自由主义危机下经济民主理论实践困境的重要切入点。

III. The “Mondragón Myth” and the Practical Dilemmas of Western Economic Democracy

三、“蒙德拉贡神话”与西方经济民主的实践困境

As a historical legacy of the leftist movement, worker cooperatives still exist widely in Europe; “the EU currently has approximately 250,000 cooperatives, providing employment for 5.4 million people.” [14]14 The source for this statistic is not provided in the original text. Successful worker cooperatives are mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, while the Mondragón Corporation is a large-scale cooperative, making it the most dazzling star among Western worker cooperatives. The corporation currently consists of 81 worker cooperatives operating in a cooperative form, including four major sectors: industry, education and innovation, retail, and finance. Its turnover has been stable at over 10 billion euros in recent decades, with a net profit of 593 million euros in 2023 and currently around 70,000 employees, making it a star enterprise that achieves a mutually reinforcing relationship between corporate profitability and “democratic ideals.” To judge the achievements and influence of the Mondragón model, the two dimensions of economic efficiency and democratic equality ideals are indispensable.

作为左翼运动的历史遗产，工人合作社在欧洲仍然广泛存在，“欧盟现有大约25万家合作社，提供了540万人的就业岗位”。成功的工人合作社多数是中小型企业，而蒙德拉贡联合公司是一家规模巨大的合作社，因而成为西方工人合作社中最耀眼的明星。该公司目前由81家工人合作社以合作经营的形式组成，包括工业、教育和创新、零售、金融四大部门，近十几年的营业额稳定在100多亿欧元，2023年的净利润是5.93亿欧元，目前员工人数在7万左右，从而成为一家在企业盈利与“民主理念”之间相得益彰的明星企业。评判蒙德拉贡模式的成就及其影响力，经济效益和民主平等理念这两个维度缺一不可。

From the perspective of economic efficiency, the corporation’s strong competitiveness mainly stems from its leading position in specific industrial niche markets, allowing it to rely on long-accumulated technological advantages and a skilled workforce to compete with emerging countries. For example, the corporation’s industrial sector operates a cooperative manufacturing packaging machinery, which has invested in factories or expanded business in over 50 countries worldwide. Its main products are mechanical equipment for producing specialized outer packaging for perishable foods. Food packaging not only needs to meet strict standards for sterilization, hygiene, and environmental protection, but also requires corresponding precision mechanical equipment for the specific packaging needs of different foods. Customers have extremely high expectations for the ease of use and stability of these machines. This determines that the production process must adopt advanced technical standards and provide comprehensive after-sales service to ensure that any problems that may arise during equipment operation can be resolved in a timely manner. At the same time, the training institutions affiliated with the Mondragón Corporation, such as its university, help train a large number of science and engineering talents, ensuring that the corporation can maintain a large pool of experienced technical personnel over the long term. Through deep cultivation in this niche market, the Mondragón Corporation ensures the competitive advantage of its related products in the market. This product model, relying on quality management and skilled workers, is also the secret to the success of many similar manufacturing enterprises in Europe. The Mondragón Corporation’s ability to maintain excellent economic efficiency over the long term benefits from the joint operation of dozens of internationally competitive manufacturing cooperatives. It is on this solid foundation that the corporation has been able to expand its business into multiple fields such as education, innovation, retail, and finance.

从经济效益层面来说，该公司之所以具备强大的竞争力，主要源于其在特定工业细分市场中的领先地位，可以依赖长期积累的技术优势和熟练工人队伍来应对新兴国家的竞争。例如，该公司工业部门运营着一个制造包装机械的合作社，该合作社已在全球50余个国家投资设厂或拓展业务。其主要产品是生产易腐食品专用外包装的机械设备。食品包装不仅需要满足除菌卫生和绿色环保的严格标准，而且针对不同食品的特定包装需求，必须配备相应的精密机械设备，客户对这些机器的易用性和稳定性抱有极高的期望。这就决定了生产过程中必须采用先进的技术标准，并提供全面的售后服务，以确保能够及时解决设备运行中可能出现的任何问题。与此同时，蒙德拉贡联合公司附属大学等培训机构帮助训练了大量理工科人才，确保公司能够长期拥有大批经验丰富的技术人员。蒙德拉贡联合公司通过在这一细分市场的深耕细作，确保了相关产品在市场上的竞争优势。这种依赖品质管理和熟练技工的产品模式也是欧洲很多类似的制造企业成功的秘诀所在。蒙德拉贡联合公司之所以能够长期保持卓越的经济效益，得益于数十个具有国际竞争力的制造业合作社的联合经营。正是基于这一坚实基础，公司得以将业务拓展至教育、创新、零售和金融等多个领域。

From the perspective of worker equality and enterprise democracy ideals, Mondragón is jointly owned and governed by worker-owners (workers-owners), using a one-person-one-vote democratic management system to ensure that all members can democratically decide on matters such as the company’s strategic planning, management personnel changes, wage standards, working environment conditions, and profit distribution. On the one hand, the corporation ensures income equality and consistency of rights and responsibilities for members through a complete set of institutional mechanisms. New employees wishing to become members need to pay a sum of money in a lump sum or in installments. After a 6–12 month probationary period, they decide whether to become members through a two-way selection process. Within the corporation, the income gap between ordinary members and senior executives is relatively equal, with the ratio between the highest and lowest income not exceeding 6:1. The membership entrance fee, employees’ voluntary investments, and subsequent profit dividends are all deposited into employees’ personal accounts within the corporation, earning a certain amount of interest. However, these funds can only be withdrawn upon leaving the cooperative or retirement, ensuring sufficient operating capital for the corporation and employees’ sense of responsibility towards it. On the other hand, the corporation has established a series of democratic management bodies to safeguard members’ democratic rights. Each of the 81 cooperatives under the Mondragón Corporation holds an annual general meeting of all members, voting on the annual operating plan according to the one-person-one-vote principle, and electing a management committee and a supervisory committee. The management committee is responsible for selecting, assessing, and providing work suggestions to managers. The selected managers form an executive committee, which is specifically responsible for the cooperative’s operations. The supervisory committee is mainly responsible for financial auditing. In addition to the management committee, executive committee, and supervisory committee, a members’ committee composed of worker representatives is established to make suggestions to managers on issues such as worker treatment, working conditions, and common demands. If major disagreements arise between the two sides, the matter can be submitted to the general meeting for a vote. At the corporation level, a Cooperative Congress composed of 650 representatives elected from each cooperative serves as the highest authority. The Cooperative Congress votes to elect the corporation’s management committee and supervisory committee, which then select and assess the corporation’s management team.

从工人平等和企业民主理念方面来说，蒙德拉贡由工人合伙人/社员（workers-owners）所共同拥有和治理，通过一人一票的民主管理制度，确保所有社员都能民主决定公司战略规划、管理层人员更迭、工资待遇标准、工作环境条件和利润分红等事宜。一方面，公司通过一套完整的体制机制确保社员收入平等及权责一致。新员工想要入社成为社员，需要一次性或分期交付一笔资金，在6—12个月的试用期后，经过双向选择确定是否成为社员。在公司内部，普通社员与高管之间的收入相对平等，最高收入与最低收入之间的差距不超过6∶1。入社金、员工自愿投入资金及后续的利润分红都存入员工在公司的个人账户，并可以获得一定的利息，但这些资金只有在退社或退休的时候才能够支取，以确保公司运营资金的充足及员工对公司的责任感。另一方面，公司设立了一系列民主管理机构来保障社员的民主权利。蒙德拉贡联合公司下属的81个合作社每年都会召开全体社员大会，按照一人一票的原则投票决定本年度运营计划，并选举产生管理委员会和监督委员会。管理委员会负责选拔、考核经理人员并向其提出工作建议，被选拔出来的经理人员组成执行委员会，具体负责合作社经营；监督委员会则主要负责财务审计工作。在管理委员会、执行委员会和监督委员会之外，另成立由工人代表所组成的社员委员会，就工人待遇、工作条件和普遍诉求等问题向经理提出建议，如果双方发生重大分歧则可以提交全体大会表决。在总公司层面，由各个合作社所选出的650名代表组成合作社代表大会，作为公司的最高权力机构。合作社代表大会投票产生出总公司的管理委员会和监督委员会，继而选拔、考核总公司的经理团队。

An analysis of the difficulties encountered by the Mondragón model in recent years also needs to be based on the above two dimensions. In terms of economic efficiency, against the backdrop of the overall declining competitiveness of European manufacturing, the turnover and profits of the Mondragón Corporation can only be barely maintained. In recent years, the corporation has suffered two serious setbacks. The first was the bankruptcy and sale of Fagor, an important manufacturing cooperative, in 2013 after continuous huge losses. Before the bankruptcy, the Mondragón Corporation transferred a large amount of resources from other cooperatives in an attempt to keep it afloat, only giving up when several other large cooperatives refused to continue providing financial support. The subsequent re-employment of its nearly 2,000 employees consumed a great deal of the corporation’s energy and resources. The second was the turmoil caused by the simultaneous withdrawal of two large cooperative clusters, Ulma and Orona, at the end of 2022. The main reason for their withdrawal was that they wanted to significantly reduce the profit share paid to the corporation but were refused, meaning that some more profitable cooperatives refused to subsidize those with poorer performance. This was, in a sense, a sequel to the internal conflicts triggered by the Fagor bankruptcy, ultimately leading to a 15% and 13% reduction in the corporation’s turnover and employee numbers, respectively. Although they remain worker-autonomous cooperatives after withdrawal and still cooperate with the corporation in many aspects, with the closure or withdrawal of these manufacturing sectors that were once the corporation’s core competitiveness and profit pillars, the operating situation facing the Mondragón Corporation is becoming increasingly severe.

对蒙德拉贡模式近年来所遭遇的困境的分析，同样需要基于上述两个层面。就经济效益而言，在欧洲制造业整体竞争力不断衰退的大背景下，蒙德拉贡联合公司的营业额和利润只能勉强维持。近些年来，该公司遭遇了两次严重挫折，第一次是重要制造业合作社法格（Fagor）连续巨额亏损后，于2013年破产变卖。在破产之前，蒙德拉贡联合公司从其他合作社调取了大量资源，试图维系其生存，直到其他几家大的合作社拒绝继续提供资金支持时才不得不放弃，其将近2000名员工的重新安置问题又消耗了公司大量的精力和资源。第二次是2022年年底乌尔马（Ulma）和奥罗纳（Orona）这两家规模很大的合作社集群同时退出引发的风波。其退出的主要原因是希望大幅减少给总公司的利润分成而遭到拒绝，这意味着一些盈利较好的合作社拒绝去补贴那些效益不佳的合作社。这在一定意义上是法格破产事件引发的内部矛盾的后遗症，最终导致总公司的营业额及员工数分别减少15%和13%。尽管它们在退出后仍然是工人自治型的合作社，与总公司在诸多方面仍有合作，然而，随着这些曾经作为公司核心竞争力和盈利支柱的制造业部门的倒闭或退出，蒙德拉贡联合公司所面临的经营状况正变得愈发严峻。

Regarding the practice of worker democracy ideals, some researchers believe that this “democracy” is not what it seems. Given the ongoing conflict between worker democracy ideals and enterprise operational efficiency, the corporation’s operational achievements in recent years have not stemmed from its practice of worker democracy ideals, but precisely from limiting worker democratic rights through other, more covert mechanisms. Broadly speaking, existing research mainly analyzes and criticizes the dilemmas of Mondragón’s worker democracy and enterprise equality ideals from two perspectives.

就工人民主理念的践行而言，有研究者认为这种“民主”名不副实。鉴于工人民主理念与企业经营效益之间的持续冲突，该公司近年来的经营成效并非源于其对工人民主理念的践行，而是恰恰在于通过其他隐蔽机制限制了工人民主权利。大致而言，现有的研究主要从两个角度对蒙德拉贡的工人民主和企业平等理念的困境作出分析和批判。

On the one hand, the economic democracy of the Mondragón cooperative corporation is more form than substance, and the sense of the members being masters of their own affairs is not strong. Observers point out that a superficial tour accompanied by company management might give the impression that workers enjoy full democratic rights, but if one delves among the workers to understand their true thoughts, a completely different answer may emerge. The general assembly of all members, based on one-person-one-vote, cannot become a genuine decision-making and deliberative body. Constrained by factors such as time for participation and professional knowledge, the proportion of workers who are truly enthusiastic about participating in democratic elections is not high; the company is generally still controlled by the management team. Sharryn Kasmir, who has conducted field research in the region for many years, believes that the various promotional materials of the Mondragón cooperative corporation generally lack the perspective of ordinary members, and management also avoids as much as possible allowing visitors to have individual contact with members. In reality, there is a certain class divide between ordinary members and management; ordinary members perceive the relationship as a distinction between “us” at the bottom and “them” as the “bosses” up above. “The term ‘boss’ refers not only to managers and senior engineers but also to those members elected as representatives to the Governing Council and the Social Council; this appellation implies that they are seen as tools of management rather than representatives of the members’ interests.” [15]15 The Governing Council (Consejo Rector) and the Social Council (Consejo Social) are two key governance bodies in the Mondragón cooperative structure; the Governing Council handles strategic management, while the Social Council is meant to represent worker interests and advise on social and labor matters. The Social Council struggles to play an advisory and supervisory role, effectively becoming a bureaucratic organ through which management implements its will, with even less voice and influence than trade unions in private enterprises. Furthermore, even in areas where workers can participate in democratic decision-making, such as wages and benefits, serious problems exist—for example, low decision-making efficiency, certain matters dragging on unresolved and easily oscillating due to multiple votes, and so on. Thus, as Kasmir says, many scholars who admire the Mondragón democratic model have exaggerated the role of its enterprise democracy; the members’ sense of responsibility and dedication to the company does not primarily come from enterprise democracy but from other obscured factors, especially the nationalist movement in the Basque region with its independent demands. Compared with other parts of Spain, the Basque Autonomous Community enjoys a relatively higher level of development and a lower unemployment rate; the achievements of the Mondragón cooperative corporation are an important source of Basque national pride. The sense of solidarity and identity among Mondragón members comes more from Basque nationalism and its distinctive cooperative culture. The Basque people have shaped community cooperation consciousness into a hallmark of their national culture, creating an atmosphere in which opposing the cooperative is seen as opposing the Basque nation. This allows national cultural identity to alleviate or override the class conflict between workers and managers, merging members’ identification with and dedication to the company with their feelings for their homeland and nation.

一方面，蒙德拉贡联合公司的经济民主形式大于实质，社员当家作主的体验感并不强。观察者指出，如果在公司管理层的陪同下泛泛参观，似乎会认为工人享受了充分的民主权利，但假如深入工人之中去了解他们的真实想法，就可能得到完全不同的答案。一人一票的全体社员大会不可能成为真正的决策和议事机构。受参与时间、专业知识等方面的限制，真正充满热情参与民主选举的工人比例并不高，公司总体上还是被经理团队所控制。在该地区实地考察多年的沙林·卡斯米尔（Sharryn Kasmir）认为，蒙德拉贡联合公司的各种宣传文案中普遍缺乏普通社员的视角，管理层也尽可能避免让参观者单独接触社员。实际上，普通社员与管理层之间存在着一定的阶级分野，普通社员将双方关系视为处于底层的“我们”与高高在上的作为“老板”的“他们”的区分，“老板既是对经理们和高级工程师的称呼，也指代那些被选为代表而进入管委会和社委员的社员，这一称呼意味着他们被视为管理层的工具而非社员利益的代表”。社员委员会难以起到建议和监督作用，事实上成为经理层贯彻其意志的官僚机构，其话语权和作用甚至不如私企工会。另外，即使是在诸如工资、福利等工人能够参与民主决策的领域，也存在严重的问题，例如决策效率低下，某些事务久拖不决且容易因多次投票而反复，等等。因此，正如卡斯米尔所说，很多推崇蒙德拉贡民主模式的学者夸大了其企业民主的作用，社员对公司的责任意识和奉献精神并非主要来自企业民主，而是来自被遮蔽的其他因素，特别是具有独立诉求的巴斯克地区的民族主义运动。与西班牙其他地区相比，巴斯克自治区拥有相对较高的发展水平和较低的失业率，蒙德拉贡联合公司的成就是巴斯克民族自豪感的重要来源。蒙德拉贡社员的团结感和认同感，更多是来自巴斯克地区的民族主义及其特有的合作文化，巴斯克人将共同体合作意识塑造为民族文化的特色，营造了一种反对合作社就是反对巴斯克民族的观念氛围，这就使得民族文化认同缓解或压倒了工人与经理之间的阶级冲突，社员对于公司的认同和奉献精神与对于家乡和民族的情感融为一体。

On the other hand, the worker equality ideal of the Mondragón cooperative corporation is facing increasingly greater challenges. Specifically, the employee composition of the Mondragón cooperative corporation has become severely stratified, with a growing number of employees becoming company workers rather than members. Currently, members account for only about one-third of the company’s total 70,000 employees, and the vast majority of these members come from the Basque region itself. The less a position relies on skilled labor, the higher the proportion of employees who are not members. For example, in the Spanish domestic industrial sector, which depends on skills, the proportion of members exceeds 70%, while in the retail sector’s consumer cooperative Eroski, among approximately 30,000 employees, the proportion of members is less than 20%. In recent years, the company has vigorously expanded its overseas business, but employees at overseas branches have not been incorporated into its cooperative system. Among domestic employees in Spain, the proportion of non-member workers is also increasing, and their interests are difficult to fully protect. This was clearly evident in the bankruptcy of Fagor. After Fagor’s bankruptcy, cooperative members were relatively properly resettled, while the larger number of non-member workers did not receive similar guarantees. This seriously violates the principles of solidarity and equality that the company advocates.

另一方面，蒙德拉贡联合公司的工人平等理念也受到越来越大的挑战。具体来说，蒙德拉贡联合公司的员工构成出现了严重分层，越来越多的员工成为公司的雇员而非社员。目前社员大约仅占该公司全部7万员工的1/3，其中绝大部分社员都来自巴斯克本地。越是那些不依赖熟练技术的岗位，雇员的比例越高，例如在依赖技术的西班牙本土工业部门中，社员比例超过70%，而在零售部门的消费合作社艾罗斯奇（Eroski）中，大约3万员工中社员的比例不到20%。该公司近些年大力拓展海外业务，但海外分公司的员工未被纳入其合作社体系。在西班牙本土员工中，雇员的比例也在不断增加，雇员的利益难以得到充分保障。这在法格破产事件上表现明显。在法格破产后，合作社的社员都得到相对妥善地安置，而数量更多的雇员却没有得到类似保障。这严重违背了该公司所倡导的团结及平等原则。

Therefore, within the Mondragón cooperative corporation, a hierarchical system has in fact formed, roughly divided into members as a labor aristocracy and non-member workers in an unstable state. The members, mainly concentrated in the Basque region, act as collective capitalists, relying on the exploitation of non-member workers elsewhere to maintain their own income and benefits. This, in a certain sense, becomes another type of capital exploitation system, greatly diminishing the company’s vaunted worker equality ideal. The Mondragón cooperative corporation has also attempted to offer explanations for this compromise of its ideals, arguing that the success of the cooperative depends on the cooperative consciousness, sense of responsibility, and democratic participation culture of its members, and that this ideal is difficult to cultivate in its foreign branches. This also indicates, from one angle, that Mondragón’s worker democracy practice relies heavily on the unique national identity, cooperative culture, and other factors specific to the Basque region; therefore, the exemplary significance of its economic democracy model is quite limited.

因此，在蒙德拉贡联合公司内部事实上形成了一套等级体系，大体上区分为作为工人贵族的社员及处于不稳定状态的雇员。主要分布在巴斯克地区的社员作为集体资本家，依靠剥削外地的雇员来维持社员的收入和福利。这在一定意义上成为另一种类型的资本剥削体系，使得其引以为豪的工人平等理念大打折扣。蒙德拉贡联合公司也试图对于这种理念妥协作出解释，提出合作社的成功依赖于社员的合作观念、责任意识和民主参与文化，而这种理念难以在其外国分部中培育。这也从一个侧面表明，蒙德拉贡的工人民主实践在很大程度上依赖于巴斯克地区所特有的民族认同、合作文化等因素，因此其经济民主模式的典范意义相当有限。

Conclusion

结 语

The admiration of the Mondragón model by mainstream Western media is a product of the dual crisis—economic and political—in which Western capitalism finds itself. Economic polarization highlights the value of Mondragón’s equality ideal, while the crisis of democratic representation in politics underscores the value of Mondragón’s democratic ideal. However, the difficult operations of the Mondragón cooperative corporation in recent years and its continuous compromises on the ideals of democracy and equality stand in stark contrast to the widespread propagation of the “Mondragón myth.” Apart from retaining certain forms of worker democratic practice, the Mondragón cooperative corporation is increasingly converging with ordinary capitalist private enterprises in terms of business management and workers’ rights. The admiration of the Mondragón model by mainstream Western media is increasingly divorced from reality.

西方主流媒体对于蒙德拉贡模式的推崇，是西方资本主义陷入经济和政治双重危机的产物。经济上的两极分化凸显了蒙德拉贡平等理念的价值，而政治上的民主代表性危机则彰显了蒙德拉贡民主理念的价值。但近年来蒙德拉贡联合公司的艰难经营及其在民主平等理念上的不断妥协，与“蒙德拉贡神话”所得到的广泛传播形成了鲜明对比。除了保留某些工人民主实践的形式，目前蒙德拉贡联合公司在经营管理和工人权利等方面越来越向一般的资本主义私人企业靠拢。西方主流媒体对蒙德拉贡模式的推崇越来越脱离实际。

The Mondragón model was once considered a paradigm of worker self-management and economic democracy, but today it has imperceptibly degenerated into a promise of stable employment—a promise that, in fact, is only available to the formal members, who account for one-third of the total workforce. Against the backdrop of the systemic crisis of capitalism, this faltering model is increasingly becoming a spectacle symbolizing capitalism’s pluralistic tolerance, an “emperor’s new clothes” on which the Western left pins its hopes, and a “cloak of deception” that numbs the working class.

蒙德拉贡模式曾一度被认为是工人自治和经济民主的典范，但在当下却不知不觉蜕变为对于稳定就业的承诺，而这种承诺实际上也仅是面向只占员工总数1/3的正式社员。在资本主义面临系统性危机的背景下，这种蹒跚前行的模式日益成为一种象征资本主义多元包容的景观，成为寄托西方左翼理想的“皇帝的新装”与麻痹工人阶级的“欺骗的外衣”。

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑