Date: Mon, 26 May 97 18:32:23 EDT From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com> Subject: Re: M-I: Re: new questions Mr. Bridenthal, Of course you are quite correct to wonder at the simplistic and unworkable "state-takeover" model. This has been the paltry excuse for a "next step" that has been holding socialism back for years. There is no thought given to the legal distinctions among kinds of property or the legal ramifications of such a precedent or any concept put forward as to how one might embed state takeovers into a workable system of civil law. Furthermore, (and Mr. Seattle should take note) there is no clear and logical position taken on ownership. How the people will own the factories - and what rights that ownership includes - is left to the vagaries of "workers councils" which will somehow, one must suppose, constitute their own legal authority. Of course all of this is completely unsatisfactory which is why it seems clear to me that the next stage of the revolution will have a decidedly syndicalist character. If worker ownership is a fact on the ground, then there is something to defend, a model to put forward. Starting through co-ops, ESOP's, and a union movement which uses all its weapons to secure the power of ownership rather than just contracts, we begin to undermine the status quo. The capitalists react by pulling out of industry. This prompts the proclaiming of "eminent domain" by local communities over their factories is a logical and more radical progression. Extremely militant unionism - to the point that it disrupts trade - is the political arm of the approach. The goal is to give the worker at a factory ownership rights over that specific factory. Once that is the practice, the theory will follow. With the other approach, we aim our guns at a theoretical target and wonder why we miss. peace, boddhisatva --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005