Subject: Re: M-I: On the misnomer of "socialism"
From: jschulman-AT-juno.com (Jason A Schulman)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 01:30:31 EST



On Thu, 2 Jan 1997 Louis R Godena writes:

>Does the nationalization of industries,  and the placing of
>workers on boards of directors (in which,  incidentally,  Western 
>workers have shown no great interest) represent a step towards
socialism,  a
>take-over of industry by the workers,  or,  rather, further steps in 
>the integration of the workers into the capitalist system.    What,   
>precisely, is "worker control"?   Is it feasible (Lenin dismissed the
concept 
>five years after the October revolution as a "pipe dream")?    And let
us 
>not forget the old bugaboo:  what do we do with the working class,  or 
>they with us?

Lou does have a point regarding workers' lack of interest in
self-management.  It's worth looking at one concrete example: the failure
of the Meidner plan for "wage-earner funds" in Sweden in the 1980s.

There was no large popular outpouring on behalf of the more radical
version of this plan.  The polling data showed indifference and even
hostility on the part of many workers.  One could argue that this was
because the Social Democratic Party allowed the plan to be discussed and
amended to death in small, technical details to the point where workers
had no interest in it.  But I suspect there was a more basic reason: the
workers had no desire to take on more responsibilty at work.

This is not suprising.  Capitalism has, after all, largely degraded work
to the status of a painful means to the pleasurable end of consumption.  

I'll quote Mike Harrington (again) on this topic:

"There is a sense in which indifference to decision making in the
workplace expresses a realism limited to a particular situation, not some
deep reluctance to participate that is part of human nature. 
Specifically, many workers rightly concluded that their active
involvement in union activity would not really enable them to affect
anything that really mattered in their daily lives.  Whenever they did
feel that thair participation could make a difference, they acted.  In
the United States, for instance, the rank and file are notorious for not
attending union meetings.  But when there is a vote on whtether or not to
accept a management offer, or to go out on strike, there are typically
huge turnouts...

"We are dealing here with the fact that the existing system does not
prepare people for socialization, that one is talking of a psychic and
cultural change in society and not just of this or that reform of the
labor laws.  This means that...socialism has to be as concerned about
education and culture as it is about the economy."  (*Socialism: Past and
Future*, Mentor Books, 1989)

I'll have more to add to this when I'm more awake...

-- Jason
______
At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary
is guided by a great feeling of love.  It is impossible to think of a
genuine revolutionary lacking this quality.
- Che Guevara



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---