Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 4:49:31 EST From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com> Subject: Re: M-I: Cooperatives? Well, "fools rush in" I guess... Justin, In terms of adapting models to conditions on the ground, I put it to you that you miss one of the arguments for market socialism here: our present conception of the divide between "public" and "private" sectors. Now, I know that Marxists tend to take a dim view of the importance of legal distinctions (preferring, sensibly perhaps, a "power is as power does" view), but they do exist, especially in the minds of libertarian-bent workers. In this regard, worker ownership has the vast advantage over state control that one does not have to invite the government into areas where it is currently not thought to belong. No one, in America at least, seems likely to invite government planning into their lives any time soon. On the other hand, worker ownership has vast acceptance as a concept. Yet, workers have really never been given the same rights and role as corporate shareholders in any if the previous "market socialist" experiments. As for the validity of markets, there is really no need to argue that. Distribution is not the issue, and it's not the important question that markets solve. Markets solve the question of what people WANT and makes the best compromise between what producers are willing to make and what consumers are willing to buy. Computers can't even handle the most computerized market there is - the stock market - despite billions invested and billions more at stake in trying to make accurate assessments of demand. The power to exploit comes from legal, illegal, and social protections for wealth. There is nothing about the market qua market which fosters exploitation. As for Louis P., he reminds me of a chap (a man who made some excellent points, although not as many as Louis P. does) who is a leader in the machinists union at United Airlines. He rails on and on against ESOP's. If Mr. Henwood is listening, he makes the point that the more radical Machinists union is extremely frustrated with the situation at United because they feel that the capitalists have simply ducked behind the machinists' fellow workers. By this I mean that the machinists feel hamstrung in the pursuit of better wages and benefits because management (who answer principally to creditors, in the machinists' view) can raise the white flag of "worker ownership" and avoid substantive negotiation on wages (and pit union against union to boot). Basically, this guy loved the fight and hates the model building that has now replaced it. He actually yearns for the days of a management that worked for greedy stockholders, because it seems, to him, the natural order of things. (One should note here that the United Airlines ESOP does not, by a long shot, give workers the same rights as proper shareholders. It is also vastly in debt and must answer to creditors who will not accept a henouse run by chickens no matter how profitable it is or even how much more profitable it might be.) Mr. Proyect obviously believes that a socialist's place is at the head of the picket line or the head of the planning table, not at a marketing conference call. Unfortunately, the post-picket-line reality is that government bureaucracy will be no more welcome under socialism than it is today (at least for the foreseeable future) and the business of socialism will be, well, business. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose. peace boddhisatva --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005