![]() Date: 2025-02-14 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00006506 | |||||||||
Dialog | |||||||||
Burgess COMMENTARY | |||||||||
3 112 comments Join the discussion… Newest Community My Disqus 54 PeterBurgess Share Avatar Paul Boisvert • 8 hours ago David Schweickart has all these ideas fairly thoroughly worked out in his book After Capitalism, and in various related articles. Workers co-ops, democratically controlled community banking, and democratic government provision of remaining non-market goods and services can eliminate two of the three markets capitalism (oppressively) utilizes--those for labor and for capital. When every worker has an equal vote in running their enterprise (including temp workers, of course), workers aren't commodities any more--rather, they can engage in democratic politics to resolve their problems and issues. And when community banks, rather than private capital, decide how to allocate funds for creating new means of production, democracy is again in control. Given those, leaving the market for finished goods intact won't result in oppression--my shopping for groceries at one store vs. another, while my neighbor chooses to do the opposite, doesn't oppress people, if there is democracy in the enterprises that produce and sell the food, and in the financing of those enterprises in the first place. Google Schweickart and After Capitalism, and enjoy... And of course, when you discover that his scheme isn't absolutely 100% perfect, as will everyone other than David's dear old mom (and even she will probably find a minor fault or two with it...), try to constructively improve it, rather than petulantly denigrate it--it's a cogent and principled attempt to provide a realistic socialist alternative, and a great start towards moving beyond capitalism... •Reply•Share › Avatar Elise • 10 hours ago Dr. Wolf, Having watched your video lectures and having assessed your written contributions, I must say that I am impressed with your work. My students will be looking into cooperatives this semester in my business classes. We need solutions to current consumerism and that mythical hand of the market that has been so devastating to the biosphere. Thank you! •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone • 13 hours ago Co-operatives are not a vision. They are a mirage. Like all mirages, the closer you get the less real it becomes. Capitalism is profit and the accumulation of profit even if it means self-exploitation which too many on this thread appear to view as a solution. Show 1 new reply •Reply•Share › Avatar wjohnfaust • 14 hours ago I'm astonished at the high quality of the comments written so far. What a refreshing departure from the norm. :^))) •Reply•Share › Avatar Martin G. Smith • 14 hours ago As the research coordinator/librarian of a growing cooperative, I suggest it is the model that can lead the day. We deal exclusively in Consumer Detritus, the cast-offs of the 'Free-Market' in which everything is about market cycles and too little about functioning as a progressive community. Our system must be working as we have doubled our working membership twice in the past five years and will double it again in 2014, stretching our reach into Europe for the largest project going. What allows us to be as good as we are is our Suits:Boots Ratio is 1:300 which give us an extremely low administrative cost,. We also have no Non-working shareholders which really upsets the 'Street' because they can't speculate on our good governance. Martin G. Smith 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 • 15 hours ago Two points: 1. Churches are some of the few institutions in American society in which serious discussion about serious issues is encouraged. I would urge anyone who wants to open up this kind of discussion to a broader audience to join a community of faith. Check out our committee here: http://www.gablesucc.org/minis... 2. We have read a series of books. We are currently studying this one: What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution by Gar Alperovitz. Alperovitz argues that the most promising course is to build the power of working people over economic institutions, whether through worker-owned enterprises or publicly owned enterprises like the TVA. We are currently debating how best to act on our values. The Alperovitz book contains many practical suggestions. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox • 18 hours ago It's not socialism or capitalism that is the problem - it's power. Organizations where power & control are organized on the military top-down down model are corrupting. They will attract sociopaths who wish to force others to their will simply from the position they hold in the organization, not through their ideas or charismatic leadership. The only solution is the breakup of large organizations, with people running their own small part of the solutions. Co-ops are an excellent example of these dispersed solutions; particularly the Mondragon model in Spain. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar wjohnfaust VoxFox • 15 hours ago Very astute. Yes, hierarchies suck. Top-down control is forever prone to abuse because they reflect whoever sits at the top. Even the most well-intended organizations (e.g., United Way) are drawn into the black hole of greed. •Reply•Share › Avatar Jeff Lebow • a day ago Great conversation. Unfortunately it appears to be an exercise in mental jousting. If any of the contributors spent an equal amount of energy and time creating alternatives to the capitalism they decry, we all might be better off. What we need is more 'collective consciousness' in our culture to overcome the endless fight for the crumbs left by the 1%. What will produce change is not what one says, thinks, or believes. Change will come from what one actually does. In other words, be the change you want. In doing so others will see that there are alternatives to what exists. I am in the 'brothers and sisters keeper' camp. To that end, I am active in the food gleaning movement for the dual purposes of feeding those in need and advancing a culture of the efficient use of critical resources (sustainability). I have witnessed community building and collective resource sharing from people across the political spectrum. Our project gives people the opportunity to act on their 'angel nature'. Although not impacting the entire economy, we can begin to address the needs of those left behind by capitalism by creating alternative infrastructures for food, shelter, health and education. Build, create a community solution in your town or neighborhood if you want to change the world. 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar Holly Jeff Lebow • 20 hours ago I agree Jeff. And more: works is disappearing from the US and has been for some decades. With the development of more and more technology the reserve labor army will rise. No work. So, collectives and cooperatives are great, but as you say, raising consciousness is the solution and withs the culture of idiocy it is a tough chore. Take a look at 'Takeover' but Steve Miller at Dailycensored.com. This article explores the increase in reserve labor and the decrease in work. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar albertkapustar • a day ago Worker ownership is a great idea but I am sure the big corporations won't let it get to far.America in the beginning was great because 95% of the population owned their own business.They were farmers and they grew and made what they needed.We lost control of our lives in the 1850's and especially the 1860's when the giant corporations started forming.This was the era of sweatshop[s,child slave labor,poverty wages for all and living in slum tenements.The real wages of capitalism uncontrolled.many brain dead conservatives will call co-ops socialism but as I have just pointed out ,they are a return to worker ownership of their lives like we had in the beginning of this country. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox albertkapustar • 18 hours ago A similar collapse occurred in Attic Greece when the introduction of money & cash crops led to economic concentration by the wealthy families, who then took over the state and impoverished everyone else in debt peonage. Only a revolution can end this type of misdirection of society. •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie albertkapustar • a day ago You have to change the funding source of capitalism. Capitalism is all about ownership whether 'deserved' or not. Investing money early and being there early generally gets you a lions share of the ownership. Workers contributions to the success are not even considered. I think there is a simple solution. Start a charity and raise money to invest in companies that plan to compete with fortune 500 companies. The charity should Invest in companies that are more about the people in the organization than the product (banking, insurance airlines would be good choices). It would be much like micro loans to individuals, but on steroids. Massive loans to a startup that requires 1000's of people. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox Jackie • 18 hours ago The government could issue simple-interest loans to worker groups to buy out the capitalists & take over the business. But I'm not holding my breath that Americans can overcome their self-destructive myths of individualism. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone • a day ago Kelly promotes the illusionary - delusionary - concept of 'good' capitalism and cites the example of The John Lewis Partnership in the UK. Just like Mondragon it is an organisation of 2-tier workers. Cleaners are sub-contracted and excluded from the partnership scheme and any share of the company's profits. The accusation of mental abstractions is Kelly's, who suggests a few isolated examples can justify capitalism's existence. Profit sharing is not a new idea and goes back to the 19th c. As one laid off JLP worker(partner) said 'its only a democracy until their profits were threatened' •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox alan SPGB johnstone • 17 hours ago Mondragon was one of the few large firms in Spain to survive the down-sizing. It all depends on the commitment of the workers. If they are just proto-capitalists then their enterprise is phoney & will be doomed. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar pbillp65 • a day ago I have had this idea on how to have the employees be owners of a company, and at the same time maintain the casinos we call NYSE and AMSE, etc. A company would issue Votiing Shares of stock to the workers and only the workers. Every employee would get the same amount of stock to start and earn more shares the longer he/she stays with the company. If the employee leaves the company, for any reason including retirement, the company has to buy the share(s) back at the current book value of the company. Thus these employee stocks become part of the employees retirement savings. These 'Voting Shares' can not be sold to anyone other than the company, so the voting rights of the stock holders can never be usurped by outside big money interests like Bain Capital. If the company needs outside financing they have the right to issue a non-voting share of stock for sale on the public stock markets. This would become a mean of obtaining additional operating funds, along with the issue of Bonds and Bank loans. All decisions of the company are made via a vote of the worker shareholders,. In such a system the welfare of the worker and the company would be married, with the decision being made taking into consideration the needs of both entities. A broad brush but one that might be workable. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 pbillp65 • 16 hours ago The distinction between voting and non-voting interests is being implemented in at least one enterprise, probably many others. See: http://www.realpickles.com/inv... •Reply•Share › Avatar CitizenWhy • a day ago I would caution against any 'total solution,' pursuing the ideological goal of eliminating all capitalism (privately owned or investor owned complex enterprises that are capital intensive). Instead we can aim pragmatically for an economy in which one quarter to one third of the economy is worker owned, or owned and operated for the common good in other ways as outlined in 'Owning Our Future' by Marjorie Kelly (citing operating examples, not mental abstractions). To have a balanced economy there is no need to for a totalistic solution. A large worker-owned and benefically owned sector would offer real competition to capitalistic enterprises, especially for labor. Capitalism sas we know it might even return to the ideology that said capitalism must prove that it can provide material abundance for workers (in contrast to its then competitor, communist governments). Even before the death of communism there was a counter-revolution to enshrine the religious doctrine that businesses are to be managed solely to 'increase shareholder value,' that is, maximize profits, that is, reduce labor costs as much as possible by any means necessary. With the death of communism this totalistic form of capitalism came to prevail in the United States. Worker-owned coops and other forms of beneficial ownership as outlined in 'Owning Our Future' avoid government involvement and constant political games. All these forms of ownership make workers, and not just managers, responsible for facing up to the technical, marketing and operational decisions needed to make a profit. This goes way beyond what unions used to be able to do through the power of the strike (much diminished). Relying on government, especially the US government, to reform capitalism is illusory. If you want to fully understand why I suggest you read 'American Nations: The Eleven Rival Regional Cultures.' The United States has always been viciously divided politically and has traditionally united only through war or internal crusades. A number of the US 'nations' will not support any reform, especially if it comers from government. Nor will the lobbyists. In DC the operating mantra is 'Lean to the Green,' meaning give your big donors what they want. And we know who their big donors are. see more 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 CitizenWhy • 16 hours ago I have reservations about promoting enterprises which are 'owned and operated for the common good.' The typical non-profit organization is that, but power is in the hands of a board of directors, not of the employees. We must recognize, I think, that we are talking here about power, not about benevolence. It is a transfer of power which must occur. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone • a day ago The co-operative road is a dead end. It cannot supplant capitalism. It can only be absorbed by capitalism. http://www.socialismoryourmone... 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Deathtocapitalism alan SPGB johnstone • 20 hours ago Agreed. And people in the US cannot even cooperate amongst themselves, let alone at work. the culture of insidious individualism coupled with disappearing work leaves cooperatives in the dust. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 Deathtocapitalism • 16 hours ago Cultures form institutions, but institutions also form cultures. The more people are involved in self-governing organizations, the more people will develop a taste for empowerment, for shared governance, and they will bring new expectations to the other relationships in their lives. It is a two-way street. Disappearing work is a different problem with different solutions, which are at the national level where powers like taxing, spending and regulation of international trade can be exercised. I think that in the US we still have enough control over our economy to implement a full-employment solution in this country. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar jimbojamesiv • a day ago I stopped reading after the second paragraph because of this gem, 'The remarkable Pew Research Center poll of December 2011 showed large percentages of Americans favorably disposed toward socialism. Many more would agree today.' Oops, it was the first paragraph, but the point still remains. Richard Wolff is one of those who thinks everything is new and has never happened before. In the mid to late 19th century up to the 50's and McCarthyism, communism and socialism were openly supported by huge--and I mean huge--swathes of the US of A. This is what's called history. Mr. Wolff should go to the library and open a book. That being said, I will try to get through his piece. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Elise jimbojamesiv • 10 hours ago Actually, it is you who needs to do your research. Dr. Wolf has written about the histories, complex entangled histories, and has lectured on these subjects at length. Perhaps you should open some of his books or avail yourself of his lectures. Start off with google and work up slowly. :) 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Vera Gottlieb • a day ago Time has come to approach the MONDRAGON people in Spain and observe how their infrastructure works. A workers' cooperative, where the 'boss' is a worker and not an over-paid CEO. Surely Mondragon's system is adaptable to the US or any other country. 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar CitizenWhy Vera Gottlieb • a day ago This is already happening. Mondragon is now working actively with the US Federation of Worker Owned Cooperatives and the US Steelworkers Union, and others. Its cooperative bank is just getting started in the USA. There is a summer program that has brought many young/youngish Americans to Mondragon to learn how it works. ... P.S. The priest founder of Mondragon said the most important part of getting Mondragon going was educating on and instilling these essential values: solidarity, subsidiarity (decisions at the lowoest level possible, all are to be involved in business decisions), and equity (fair ownership, fair rewards for work and skills). It took a long time for people to understand and buy into these values. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar LLP • a day ago I just want to say...this was one of the very best 'comment' sections I have ever read. Thank you to all participants, you give me hope for a better future - this sharing is the foundation of what is to come. •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone • a day ago It may be an alternative but it isn't a genuine socialist one. Redistribution within capitalism is NOT socialism. The 'industrial manufacturer' is as parasitical as financiers leeching off the labour of the workers. There is not a 'fair' level of exploitation. Just what coercive powers would be imposed to ensure that the small capitalist does not grow into the large one? Mondragon Co-op that Wolff supports has different level of workers and recently one section approved the lay off of another in the spirit of 'co-operative' solidarity. 1 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 alan SPGB johnstone • 16 hours ago When it comes to worker ownership and management, we are going to have to implement at something less than a national or global scale. The goal is that eventually we have the building blocks of a just society. If the large banks were cooperatives they would still be a problem- Alperovitz (quoting the early Chicago economists) would tell us that entities that are large enough to capture their regulators have to be government-owned. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar CitizenWhy alan SPGB johnstone • a day ago Not quite an accurate picture of Mondragon. Due to growth by acquisition Mondragon businesses are now 9% worker-owned but the enterprise is working to spread the ownership to those not currently included. Votes in regard to owner-workers have not led to lay-offs, although this could have happened in non-worker owned subsidiaries. The best source for information is Mondragon's own web site. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar solerso • a day ago The foundational mechanism of capitalism must be dismantled or there will be no improvement . A 'genuine' Socialist 'alternative' need not change our lives that much, or most ownership relations..In a Socialist society we would still earn money and buy things, there would even be a management class, perhaps even an executive class. The main difference though would be most industries would be owned collectively through the state and operated at a 0 loss or a nominal profit. The main thing is to eliminate lock stock and barrel the parasitic 'investor' class and layer upon layer of rent collecting shareholders. There would be, of course, no reason why worker collectives on a local scale or even small privately owned business (like restaurants or music stores) could not also be a part of the solution. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar CitizenWhy solerso • a day ago What the state gives it can, and most likely will, take away. Yes, there would still be a management class in any market system as there is in large worker owned enterprises, but managers to the workers, not investors and not the government. And the pay of top executives is a modest multiple of that of the workers. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar solerso CitizenWhy • 18 hours ago Im not talking about 'giving'. we .need to get past the idea of workers controlling the means of production as 'charity'..i know its ingrained in the thought process of Americans but charity is different. Charity can exists under a socialist economic order too, but there would be much less demand for it. •Reply•Share › Avatar Jules™ • 2 days ago Why can't you all accept that capitalism is far superior to socialism? Do you all not see the inherent flaws in socialism. I mean, reading through some of your comments it's mind boggling some of the utopian concepts you are all suggesting. Accept the natural order of things and move on. 1 6 •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox Jules™ • 17 hours ago 'By their fruits shall ye know them.' We have had capitalism now for over 200 years & it overwhelmingly helps the few. Ask all the unemployed, poor, sick & weak what they think of capitalism. Don't confuse capitalism with industrialism or technology - that's a big lie. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting Jules™ • 19 hours ago Jeez, mystified much? Nothing like confusing human-made entities with natural forces. But I guess it's comforting for some of use to live in a world where the likes of Jamie Dimon get to define what's 'natural' and what isn't. •Reply•Share › Avatar Anne Ominous Jules™ • 20 hours ago Really, Jules? I live in Canada and, though our right-wing government is working at destroying our health care system and all other humane aspects of governance here, we still have more socialist aspects than you Americans do. Countries like Sweden more-so. As a result the average citizen and average worker does far better than their counterparts in the U.S. Can't YOU see that capitalism (especially since 2008) is a self-cannibalizing failure? 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar barada Jules™ • a day ago You sound like a Capitalist-Religionist, bowing to your God. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox barada • 17 hours ago aka 'Mammon'. •Reply•Share › Avatar CitizenWhy Jules™ • a day ago You are talking about the reality of a market system, and the need to organize some businessess in complex and sometimes capital intensive ways. I agree that the idea of a total solution - doing away with all capitalistic, privately owned or investor owned enterprises - is a bad idea. But an economy in which one quarter to one third of businesses are worker owned and locally responsible would balance out the destructive tendencies of globalized capitalism and Wall Street. In addition to worker-owned businesses you may be interested to learn of other ways to operate profitable businesses for the common good. Many are detailed in 'Owning Our Future' by Marjorie Kelly. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 CitizenWhy • 16 hours ago Even if the people who operate businesses for the common good are philosopher-kings, that is not good enough, It is the workers who should have the power. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone Jules™ • a day ago Didn't King John of England say much the say as later did Louis XVI...us commoners actually having a say in the running of the world certainly was utopian att he time, wasn't it? Society evolves and changes constantly...there is no 'natural' order...capitalism had its revolutionary stage now it holds back human progress. •Reply•Share › Avatar solerso Jules™ • a day ago Why don't you stop running the programs and think about what your saying? Have you ever stopped to think about it, or are you just responding in the way you've been conditioned to ? 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar pontificator Jules™ • a day ago ...accept profiteering... •Reply•Share › Avatar wjohnfaust Jules™ • a day ago In what sense superior? It certainly has been successful at concentrating massive amounts of wealth in very few hands. It has certainly wreaked havoc on the environment. It certainly has conjured up markets for endless amounts of useless paraphernalia. Having co-opted the state, it has ended true competition nationally and internationally, gained immunity to it high-stakes gambles, ended any responsibility to the 'larger' society, and offloaded all of its risks onto the public. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie Jules™ • a day ago And the current corporate structure is nature? I thought it was just invented and than manipulated into its current form. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Jules™ Jackie • a day ago Invented by humans who happen to be part of nature. Take a look at the world and tell me which countries have the highest living standard and quality of life, then get back to me. I don't get it, you people don't like freedom, choice or you just want someone to tell you how to live. The idea of being able to chose your profession and place to live is somehow 'bad'. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox Jules™ • 17 hours ago Yaba daba doo. Let's share my mental confusion with others. It's not freedom to screw your neighbours. What a mindset. See how long you would survive in prison with that attitude. •Reply•Share › Avatar SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting VoxFox • 16 hours ago I get it. If we question the notion that the economic system as presently constituted is the 'natural' order of things then we don't like freedom. Better trolls, please. •Reply•Share › Avatar Anne Ominous Jules™ • 20 hours ago You actually believe the U.S. has a high living standard opposed to, say, Sweden? Try educating yourself. The U.S. has, for instance, one of the highest infant mortality rates among developed countries. 4 •Reply•Share › Avatar barada Jules™ • a day ago You are a lover, not a thinker, Jules. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar kimc Jules™ • a day ago Actually, the countries that have the highest living standards in the world are socialist democracies. Principally, northern Europe/Scandinavia. 5 •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie Jules™ • a day ago I love freedom and choice. We are free to choose an alternative form of economics for our democracy. My idea below is capitalism, it just has many owners instead of a few. It emphasis work rather than investment. What do you have against that? 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie • 2 days ago I think the key to doing this in a practical sense is to establish a charity to raise money for investment. All current models of capitalism and even co-ops put too much emphasis on the initial investments and the people who where there from day one. By creating a charity that would invest the money for the startup costs and beyond, you remove the 'I was here first, I invented that, I took all the risk, mentality. The company would than pay the charity back plus interest when it could and the money would be used for another loan. Employees would earn shares based on years of service and other factors. The charity would hold a certain number of board positions proportional to the loan amount still owed. The second important issue is structure. I believe it would have to be a corporation to effectively compete, fight fire with fire. A cooperative-corporation, using the very laws written by the 1% against them. All corporations must have a purpose, a charter, articles and bylaws. In a democratically formed business structure, the corporations early paperwork could act much like a constitution. And the workers, the people who vote. A very cynical lawyer came up with the most often used phrase for the purpose of almost all corporations, 'for any legal business activity.' It does not have to be that way. The paperwork of a corporation can be very restrictive and used to prevent abuse by its owners, just as it can be very loose and allow them to do almost anything. I believe the charity would be very involved in creating a model cooperative-corporate purpose, articles and bylaws (this is where big questions could be determined such as how are shares earned, how are people paid based on position, how are shares redeemed, how are employees retired and paid in retirement, etc.) A think tank in name and action! Lastly, I believe these cooperative-corprations should aim high, and attempt to go after large corporations (banking, insurance, airlines, big box retail). Change will not occur by building a barn, or starting a small firm of technical professionals. Change will happen when we threaten the existence of the fortune 500 companies. And this revolution would not require relying on politicians. It would be interesting to see how a true employee owned corporation would act as a citizen. 1 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 Jackie • 16 hours ago The Italian cooperatives seem to produce great citizens. See: http://cog.kent.edu/lib/ErdalC... •Reply•Share › Avatar jimbojamesiv Jackie • a day ago With all due respect, you haven't got a clue if your recommendation is to institute a charity. Charities are not just proof of the failure of government but illegal, since again they're proof that government is not fulfilling its function. Besides the fact that (a) charities don't solve problems and (b) charities are in it for the money, which brings you back to (a). •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 jimbojamesiv • 16 hours ago The challenge is to work within the current framework to build a new framework. Not unlike what has been going on at our local airport (Miami) for decades. A non-profit could be a handy way to accumulate some capital that could be then lent out for worker buyouts and startups. In fact, I have been pushing the local micro-lenders to get into that- without much success yet. •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie jimbojamesiv • a day ago With all due respect, you are wrong in your blanket statements. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar kimc Jackie • a day ago What would you do about situations where one or two persons did actually invent something new, perhaps at great expense to themselves in time and money? •Reply•Share › Avatar Anne Ominous kimc • 20 hours ago Yes, people should benefit from inventing something new--but that does not give them the right to exploit the workers who make their invention's success possible. Anyway, most capitalists haven't invented anything--they've exploited other peoples' ideas. •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie kimc • a day ago I am not advocating changing any laws, but to use the laws that exist to create cooperative corporations that compete with . An individual who invents something will be in the same position as they are today. I am fighting todays capitalism with tomorrows capitalism. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar PeterBurgess • 2 days ago I like to read / listen to what Richard Wolff has to say, and broadly agree with his analysis. The challenge is to propose changes that have the potential to work in the complex modern global economy that exists, together with its embedded power structure. In my view, those that work for a living (as opposed to those that invest for a living) have got to be included in the decision making in an appropriate way. However, making workers invest in their workplace, when their workplace is losing money is not a solution, on its own. Workers have taken a smaller and smaller share of the business surplus over the past 40 years because decision makers have been able to make more and more profit for the investors be engaging in a global race to the bottom. In the process investors have facilitated the gutting of the US economy (and the same goes for Europe). Worse, many of the government entities around the world and practically bankrupt because there is not enough tax revenue being paid into these entities to pay for the services that have been promised (and voters have voted for). The problems are systemic. I argue that investors have got to pay attention not only to the health of the companies they invest in, but also to the health of the global economy and global society. But everyone has got to get engaged and start to buy goods and services that are good for society. This can be helped along by data that informs people in a much better way what is going on when they buy or do not buy something. I argue that companies pay more attention to what customers are doing than to what activists are saying ... so let's change the way customers behave. I say we do that with date about everything that really matters. If we change the way the game is scored, we change the way the game is played. If profit is the dominant metric, then that is what will be priority. If impact on people and planet gets the same attention, a lot of the problems will start to go away! Peter Burgess ... TrueValueMetrics Multi Dimension Impact Accounting 1 •Edit•Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 PeterBurgess • 16 hours ago I think that conscious purchasing, like anything else, can go only so far. For it to work effectively, we must have alternative suppliers of the goods and services we purchase. I guess a union label would be a start at establishing a standard. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone • 2 days ago Typo ..End Poverty in California... •Reply•Share › Avatar alan SPGB johnstone • 2 days ago From economic recessions springs forth magical solutions. Look into history and that otherwise insightful author Upton Sinclair produced the EPIC movement. Californias were going to repair the damage of the slump with various land occupations and co-operatives. Stalin would try and build 'socialism’ in one country. Sinclair would go one stage further and build 'socialism’ in just one US state. The End Poverty In Capitalism’s plan was to be financed by taxation and bond issues. In other words, Sinclair was asking the capitalists to pay for the rope that is to hang them. Woolfe expects the organs of the capitalist interests, central government, state and city authorities to act against their pay-masters. Let us be very blunt. Wolff’s proposals contemplates no fundamental alteration in capitalist relations. There will still be wage labour, buying and selling, production for exchange and private ownership little different in essence to a joint-stock company or the widespread municipal ‘socialism’ of utilities in the 19th C. Workers will still engage in the same cut-throat competition with other WSDEs to cut costs to be sustainable and grow into such successful world-wide co-operatives such as the Rabobank. It is an old scenario that has been tried and tested....and always found failing whenever put into practice. Why offer a broken model yet again? Because Wolff’s ideas are attractive to those who dislike capitalism but in the final analysis, lack confidence that either there are sufficient resources on the planet to provide for all , or that human beings can work voluntarily, and co-operate to organise production & distribution of wealth without chaos, and consume wealth responsibly without some form of rationing. Free access to good and services should be the clarion call - 'From each according to ability - to each according to need” 2 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar iwbcman alan SPGB johnstone • a day ago I respectful disagree. Now granted, the devil is in the details, No two WSDE have exactly identical principles or practices. On characteristic of WSDE 's is that they are tailor-made by communities themselves, It would be silly to think that any two communities would magically be faced with exactly the same decisions, trade offs, compromises etc. On a very theoretical level one can describe basic fundamental principles that should apply to all WSDE's, but reality will always diverge from such. 'Let us be very blunt. Wolff’s proposals contemplates no fundamental alteration in capitalist relations. There will still be wage labour, buying and selling, production for exchange and private ownership little different in essence to a joint-stock company or the widespread municipal ‘socialism’ of utilities in the 19th C. Workers will still engage in the same cut-throat competition with other WSDEs to cut costs to be sustainable and grow into such successful world-wide co-operatives such as the Rabobank.' This is where I most disagree with you: the fundamental relation of a capitalist society is private property-private ownership of the means of production. The very structure of WSDE's is precisely contrary to this fundamental principle. In a WSDE there is no private property. This is far more radical than anything that unions have attempted in their entire existence, because unionism necessitates unions in opposition to private property owners-unions only attempt to restrain the capitalists in their drive to exploit workers, not to eliminate private property ownership. And in doing so unions both legitimate and necessitate private property. The real key to success in WSDE's is the creation of local alternative finance economies. Imagining WSDE's being financed through existing capitalist financial systems and you miss the entire point. Someone esle in this thread mentioned charities to fund such. This is absolutely wrong and a sure fired recipe for failure. A viable community based local public banking system is a per-requisite for WSDE, which is how the Mondragon WSDE in Spain actually started-the first step was build the bank, afterwards came the rest. One of the key failings of Marx, was that he himself was unable to imagine money itself as 'private ownership of the means of production'. To the extent that most financial money is itself produced by banks(not the fed, the treasury or 'guberment') this is a central weakness. We can speculate and come up with innumerable equations to express value in relation to labor-but the supply of money is basically endogenous, meaning banks create money, on their keyboards, by issuing credit. Returning this money making principle to communities, and the people who inhabit them, rather than allowing a privileged class of financier and rentier to dictate available money supplies is also key to overcoming capitalism. Long live the legacy and spirit of Occupy, 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Santiago66 iwbcman • 16 hours ago Do you think a credit union organized under current law could operate as a bank for cooperatives? •Reply•Share › Avatar jbecket • 2 days ago We really need this discussion. Autogestion as it was known in Algeria under Ben Bella after independence and also in Yugoslavia. Neither lasted but it was an attempt for a democratic non-Stalinist model. In today's world it also fits into small vs. giant, bottom up vs. top down, local vs. national/global. So many threads are coming together for example in the food system. One can hope we're not too late and a pushback will gain momentum. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Dr Kihn • 2 days ago Wolff makes some good points here, but like every liberal opinion-maker who ever lived, he will do or say anything to avoid the R-word: REVOLUTION. The word that can never be spoken, and if it were, his article would not be printed on the front page of truthout or any other liberal news source. In the words of Big Bill Hayward, 'A liberal is the guy who leaves the room when the fight starts.' Discussing 'traditional socialism' shows his lack of Marxist understanding, since socialism has never existed. Socialism is a theoretical global system that will operate on the principles of sharing and cooperation and will necessarily abolish the accumulation of private wealth. It cannot compete against dog-eat-dog capitalist regimes. Neither the Stalinist/Maoist regimes nor Western European governments nor Cuba could be called 'socialism' since, as Lenin and Trotsky knew quite well, socialism cannot be built within the framework of the nation-state. Only that which the rulers fear the most - and I mean what terrifies them to death - massive street protests and strikes, day after day, week after week, year after year, will finally end the dictatorshilp of capital and establish political/economic democracy - through the vehicle of international workers solidarity. Saving our pennies in order to buy Walmart from the Waltons will never happen - will never get the job done. Wolff's heart is in the right place, but he, Alperwitz, Chomsky, and the rest really don't know how to move from point A to point B, which makes their schemes utopian in nature. 5 •Reply•Share › Avatar klauser Dr Kihn • 2 days ago Thank you. The only thing they, now, understand is raw power and endless and free money. They are delusional aristocrats, cheap and foul compared to previous generations of monarchs. They've already destroyed much of the United States, recently killing and maiming millions. They will continue to poison us and get us killed, pauperized and ill what they want, whenever they want it because they are crazy. The top of the 1% are gone from us and they dominate and define everything in sight. We're up against the intellectual and moral filth of the western world. They are militant and quick to kill and incarcerate anyone who gets in their way. They are, now, in the process of total colonization of the United States into their global gulag. The President of the United States is their houseboy and the people's revolutionary institutions are filled with their sycophants. They've transposed the Republic into a corporate state with the largest penal colony in the world while the American people remain Citizens of Nothing. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Dr Kihn klauser • 2 days ago From a revolutionary working class point of view, the capitalist class is our class enemy, and they know it only too well. They hate and fear us. The same cannot be said for us. Lack of class consciousness on our part is what prevents class solidarity, our most important weapon in this class struggle to determine the future of humanity. We can no longer afford the luxury of begging them for crumbs from their table, of voting for rich people and expecting good things to come from that, of remaining well-behaved Boy Scout citizens. Our task now is to organize unions and street demonstrations and learn how to fight and win, with the ultimate aim of bringing down zombie capitalism and replacing it with a totally new global system in which human needs come first. 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar Anne Ominous Dr Kihn • 20 hours ago I love what you are saying Dr Kihn, but they have all the weapons. They don't care how many of us die. Until their 'enforcers' in the police and military defect to our side, and until there is major sabotage carried out inside the system, the general strikes and street demos will simply be crushed, the way Occupy has been crushed, only much more brutally the more viable the opposition becomes. •Reply•Share › Avatar VoxFox Anne Ominous • 17 hours ago Yep, revolutions are only successful when the army & police join the revolutionaries. We need to keep educating the 'tools' of the state that helping the rich is not in their best interest. •Reply•Share › Avatar Dr Kihn Anne Ominous • 20 hours ago Consider this: students, intellectuals, and the jobless are expendable. They can be beaten, jailed, even killed and the ruling class continues to be the ruling class. But - there is one segment of the population, which just so happens to be the majority, that is indispensible to their power, and that segment is the WORKING CLASS, because without VOLUNTARY LABOR, the capitalist class cannot keep making and accumulating wealth, and without wealth, they lose their power over the rest of us. The only plan of action that makes sense is to strengthen the working class, and the place to start is by developing working class consciousness in ourselves and our coworkers, and with it, international class solidarity, our own devastating weapon. Until we know who we are and who the enemy is, we are still standing at home plate looking at pitches. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar kimc Dr Kihn • a day ago 'zombie capitalism' -- love it! I am so going to steal that phrase! 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Dr Kihn kimc • a day ago Steal away, kimc! Y'know, capitalism a hundred and fifty years ago was a progressive force that, while committing its share of atrocities, was nevertheless inventing things and getting the wheels of industry in gear. Now however it has become a toxic corpse, stumbling forward on its own momentum, infecting everything it touches. This zombie cannot be 'fixed.' It can only be beheaded! 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Brian Schatz kimc • a day ago 'Zombie Capitalism' is from Henry Giroux. See 'Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism.' 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar kimc Brian Schatz • a day ago My partner says that in addition to great negative phrases like 'Zombie Capitalism', we need a good positive way to express the alternative. the initials used in this article are not what we want -- if we are going to use initials, it must be pronounceable and memorable. Better is a word that expresses an image we want to convey. Any ideas for that? •Reply•Share › Avatar Anne Ominous kimc • 20 hours ago I don't see why we have to replace the term 'worker cooperatives' with a bunch of silly initials in the first place. •Reply•Share › Avatar kimc Brian Schatz • a day ago Thanks. I'll look for it. •Reply•Share › Avatar vulfhild • 2 days ago The US government has a decent guide to starting a cooperative. It's a good structure for day care, maintaining control of your local water supply, organic or community gardens, bike sharing, etc., etc. I'd love to see some for installing home solar and wind turbines. Cooperatives aren't any more 'socialist' than a bunch of people getting together to put up a barn, which is what so many of our ancestors did. http://www.sba.gov/content/coo... 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar Adrian Cracchiolo • 2 days ago we don't know what democracy is never had it as far as the Republic it's been infiltrated and has been destroyed only way is to get rid of the institutes ngo's and foundations that lobby against use and take people taxes and of course elected officials give this money away it's either get integrity into govt or get rid of what takes advantage of the current system 2 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Adrian Cracchiolo • 2 days ago We have to get the capital first http://www.thepetitionsite.com... Purpose Vehicle Makes Treasury Notes collateral for families to collect the interest from 0% interest loans then bank receives funds at maturity The Federal Reserve is not Government 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Sam Leopold • 2 days ago Change comes in response to imperatives, that's when people cooperate responding to threats to the community, or a common need to learn new ways for survival. Capitalism threatens our communities, but it provides just enough to keep us alive. Kibutzim in Israel grew out of the need to protect boarders from invasion and to learn agriculture to feed a new nation; two imperatives that created that movement. When the imperatives no longer existed there went the cooperatives, by in large. What are the imperatives we're facing now? Here are two: 1) Old age... a demographic time-bomb where huge numbers will face hardship and humiliation. A cooperative approach to care would be good. 2) Disability... growing numbers of children being born with neurological issues are going to need care. A cooperative approach by parents and others may help. Can anyone think of some others? 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar kimc Sam Leopold • a day ago It's quite likely to have cooperative manufacturing plants. It gets rid of the high cost of management, so is more competitive. We have invented something, and will be manufacturing it. When we are ready to open the second factory, we are thinking of selling the first to the workers to run, licensing the technology to them. Or, maybe, a franchise system. We'll see. Co-operating works with anything, so long as you have co-operative people and a good business model. If you stay away from stock-holders, you don't have to make an accelerating percentage of profit, which is the part of Capitalism that needs doing away with. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Geria Sam Leopold • 2 days ago Regarding imperative number one, old age isn't that much of a problem if you retain the Social Security system or something like it. Paying into a fund during your working years that will provide you with an income in old age has proven to work very well and there is no reason to change it substantially or do away with it. Financing it can be guaranteed by removing the income cap. The elderly need not be placed in alternate living situations. They can live in their own homes if a younger person agrees to rent from them and/or perform services that the elderly can no longer do for themselves. Americans must stop thinking competition is such a good thing and appreciate cooperation much more. Competition belongs to capitalist thinking--we must think differently. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Sam Leopold Geria • 2 days ago I was thinking more about systems of elderly care that might arise out of entrepreneurial capitalism vs a more cooperative approach. Under the first, we turn our Social Security payments (if we have any) over to the cleverest of 'old home packagers'. Something like a McDonald's model where we all have mechanical beds in environmentally controlled rooms with automatic buzzers to alert staff when we move or pee. In the second, though, perhaps we're in a community-type circumstance, receiving care from co-workers who are supported by that circumstance as well. Something with dignity and humanity at its basis, not profit. •Reply•Share › Avatar AnnFerg • 2 days ago I agree that a workers' cooperative-dominated economy is our best socialist alternative but I have some questions. First, would you agree that this is Market Socialism (cf. David Schweickart)? Is it like the former Yugoslavian system? If so, it is not like Parecon, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel's Participatory Economy model, because that does not involve markets. How exactly does the representative democracy (what Wolff calls residential democracy) work in tandem with the WSDEs? How is the capital for start-ups provided? How does this model compare to what Venezuela is doing with its Social Councils (Comunas)? At least there is an emphasis there on participatory democracy at the resident level, not just representative democracy. •Reply•Share › Avatar Geria AnnFerg • 2 days ago I don't pretend to answer for Prof. Wolf, but this doesn't appear to be Market Socialism as I understand it. The WSDE's are the kind of worker's control of the means of production that communism always promised and never delivered. The key is who makes the real decisions that need to be made. •Reply•Share › Avatar iwbcman Geria • 21 hours ago Exactly. I started to write a response to your mentioning of the Rhineland model yesterday but never sent it. Here goes: Having spent almost 15 years in Germany, when I was younger, I was immediately able to associate something with the 'Rhineland Model'. And although some aspects of what Richard Wollf describes is similar to this model, I take his understanding of WSDE(which he does not really describe in any detail in this article) to be significantly more radical than what is actually practiced on a national level in any european states. Richard writes about WSDE dominant economies, although no current nation has a national economy dominated by WSDE's- there are regions and communities throughout the world that are dominated by WSDE's but nothing at the national level. At least as far as I know.Worker participation in councils and executive boards in Germany are light years ahead of america, but still quite removed from direct democracy in the work place. Yes 50% worker participation at the board level, worker councils and industry wide tarif/wage regulations give the average german worker far more say in their workplace than most americans can even imagine, but these are still rigidly hierarchical institutions, not 'basis Demokratie'. Still this comparison is more right that wrong, the northern european countries on a spectrum are much closer to what Richard is talking about than american capitalism. Workers, on the whole in europe are far, far more organized, whether directly in unions, or indirectly through worker councils.'alle Macht den Raeten' American unions(the only form of worker organization most americans have ever heard of or seen) sold out on direct democracy almost from their inception, this is what separates syndicalism from unionism, which came about, historically much later. Instead of fighting for a real say in all matters relating to production they focused on securing benefits, not available to non-union members(pensions, and other 'perks'). Which is one of the pivotal points in understanding the deep tension that exists in our society regarding unions. I do not wish to disrespect what american unionism has achieved for all americans(40 work week, worker safety, disability compensation and lots, lots, more). But American unions are not, nor have they been, democratic in form or function, throughout most of american history(with exceptions of course). And with the purges, of which there were many, which preceded taft-hartley any pretense of real democracy in american unionism was literally taken out back and shot. The principles for which unions stand are principles which I hold sacred (solidarity, worker rights, human dignity etc.) but as is usual their is a profound disconnect between such principles and how unions actually work. Some of this was the fault of the unions themselves, some societal, some cultural-for most of the 20th century unions were bastions of racism, sexism and lots of other nasty things, which is one reason that most of the poor in america resent unions -aside from being basically feckless against the corporate capitalist onslaught which has almost annihilated whats left of american unions, they became isolated pockets or relative priviledge. Add to that the cult-of-personality traits of union leaders (the 'BIG MAN') and what comes out are not politically and socially engaged workers, but rather tea partiers who while working for unions actively elect officials who are flat out anti-union(probably more than half of UAW workers voted tea party last time, at least of the few who actually bothered to vote). I will not 'white wash' the horrible, bitter ironies of american unions in defense of principles which I myself hold sacred. The traditional model of american unionism does not and cannot represent the future of workers rights in america. Although I am happy to see some of the larger unions in america finally waking up to progressive politics(the Nation Nurses Union, parts of UCWA etc.), and I am absolutely thrilled to see service sector worker clamoring for unions(fast food workers, walmart employees etc.) the forms that these groups will take going forward will be fundamentally different than tradition american unionism and thats a good thing. What makes it even worse is that nothing promotes the culture of the BIG MAN like traditional american unions. The youth of today clamoring for unions rights in the service sector will not content themselves by substituting one hierarchy for another. Soziale Marktwirstschaft, Market Socialism is not the same things as WSDE's. Similar to the extent that workers have far more say in production than their american counterparts but only relatively speaking. Most importantly is the distinction concerning ownership. Market Socialism does not engender worker ownership. Workers in Germany tend to be far more autonomous than their american counterparts, and in general I firmly believe work in Germany engender much more in the way of human dignity than most americans can even imagine, due to this. The abuses workers in american are subjected to day in and day out are simply unimaginable to most germans. You simply cannot grasp how passive and accepting american workers are until you have lived abroad- american workers are the most pliant(compliant) workers in the advanced economical world. And this is primarily due to the fact that workers have basically no rights in america, except for some concessions wrung from the corporations by american unions. We have become such an authoritarian culture in the last decades, how we venerate 'job creators' and such is outright shameful. What makes this even worse is the new fad which has taken over the IT world- your boss is your buddy, you get the freedom to wear blue jeans and t-shirts and in exchange your boss owns your ass-these apparently laid back, less formal workplaces simply render workers even more exploitable, all while smiling and patting each other on the back. The boss is not you friend, you do not share the same interest, but we as a society are so gullible we really believe that such superficial affections represent any real change in the relations. And again I am not demonizing the boss- they are people to, some nice, warm, friendly and good hearted but you, as a worker, must never forget your place, lest you face the consequences. The structure of the relationships define the relations between the owner and the worker-not our personalities as likable or hatable (word?)as they may be. Again these arguments go back centuries. Marx got most of his ideas from the syndicalist in France around the turn of the 18th century. He substituted the notion of STATE in opposition to the CAPITALISTS. His conception of the STATE was the dictatorship of the proletariat. His ideas are inherently centralist, heirarchical and command driven, very befitting the civil war torn european landscape of the mid-19th century(17 failed revolutions inside of 10 years of the writing of the Communist Manifesto). WSDE's challenge another key factor for Marx, and that is the division of labor, which is the ultimate root of the social classes, and class warfare. One of the questions which WSDE's raise is to what degree and to what extent is such divisions of labor necessary and/or good. Some degree of division of labor is probably insurmountable-but look at the existing workplace in America with near infinite subdivisions and level upon level of hierarchical stratification. The explosion in Management which has taken place primarily since the 80's is, from my point of view, a symptom of over-differentitation, where the common sense understanding that some people are better at somethings than others has simply gone off the deep end. We demand of most workers no autonomy, no self-direction, no discretion, no decision making. In so doing we rarely challenge, let alone reward workers for such behavior. We praise initiative when the worker second-guesses what the boss wants but woe on thee if your second guess is wrong. Remember Walmart and McDonalds are two of the largest employers of America-the workplace conditions of Google may be commendable but more people work in fast food and gas station jobs in Louisville, Ky than in the entirety of Google. Long live the legacy and spirit of Occupy 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar AnnFerg Geria • a day ago I guess it depends what you mean by Market Socialism. It also depends on what counts as the 'real decisions'. For example, who gets to decide how much money is available for new start up coops? Is this a function of a government fund or of a cooperative bank? And are coops competing with each other in markets like corporations in capitalism? If so, they may produce some of the problems of capitalism, for example hiring temp workers who are not owners who dont have decision-making power, and then firing them when demand for their product or service goes down. My point is, that we need to say more about what the political economy of this WSDE system is, what is the relation of the government to the cooperatives, what regulations are in place, what social programs (unemployment, welfare, universal affordable public education, single payer healthcare? etc) And what kinds of democratic practices inform decision-making at all these sites. •Reply•Share › Avatar Ecuador AnnFerg • 20 hours ago See the article on education and Ecuador at Dailycensored.com. This country is investing in Education only second to Denmark. 1.9% of the GDP. Without education there will be no class consicousness. Withsout class consciousness there will be no socialism •Reply•Share › Avatar Newsrocket • 2 days ago I think there is tremendous potential in justifying flat-lining consumption. If George Carlin could get audiences to laugh about mindless accumulation of 'stuff,' much of the heavy psychological lifting could be behind us. Most Americans know in their soul that perpetual buying of crap they don't need is a hollow lifestyle. What Mr. Wolf or others might do next is to embark on a series of books and lectures about how a post-consumptive era might look from personal lifestyle up to the pinnacle of political power and the regulatory interventions that will likely be required to pull it off. We need a new social/economic model that preserves human life AND the planet it dwells upon. 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar PeterBurgess Newsrocket • 2 minutes ago Good discussion. Someone said early in the discussion that capitalism has really been going wrong since 2008. My first knee jerk reaction was to suggest that the date should probably be 1978, but on more reflection it really goes back to 1808 and the beginning of the industrial revolution. Charles Dickens, Karl Marx and others wrote about the problems arising during the industrial revolution. Both saw the same problems. Karl Marx, to his credit tried to defined some changes that might work. Charles Dickens just stayed with writing about it. In my view Marx proposed a theoretical construct that has no hope of being successful in the real world, and I see little point in rehashing the the communist model. The reason I think 1978 ... or somewhere around that time ... is that productivity has been improving in an amazing way since the 1970s because of science and technology (knowledge). In the USA from the end of the depression of the 1930s to about this time, workers in the USA increased their standard of living, sharing the economic surplus from productivity, but after this time productivity had become so 'good' that workers became less and less important in the scheme of things, and owners (and top executives) suddenly were in control of the system. For workers the race to the bottom has been going on now for about 40 years and with capitalism as we know it there is nothing that will stop it. I advocate for the management of society and the economy where things are people centric rather than being organization centric. I argue that the purpose of economic activity is to improve the quality of life or people ... all people, and I am totally agnostic when it comes to the economic structures that get this result. Not surprisingly with my background I want metrics to be the tool for this change to happen. We absolutely have to measure everything that matters rather than merely using the very simplistic money profit metrics of business profit, stock prices and GDP growth which cannot work in a global society where the productivity is as high as it is and accordingly workers (in the present economic framework) have absolutely no say. Society and the economy are complex. In complex systems it is impossible to plan the future and get it right. The maths don't compute. On the other hand progressive change is possible when there are a massive number of small changes are heading in the 'correct' direction (I did write 'right' initially rather than 'correct' but did not want this to be construed wrongly as a political idea.) The metrics must be neutral about everything except measurement of the state, progress and performance of every aspect of society and the economy. My mantra is simply that when we change the way the game is scored, we change the way the game is played. Peter Burgess - TrueValueMetrics Multi Dimension Impact Accounting •Edit•Reply•Share › Avatar Geria Newsrocket • 2 days ago The question of how much to produce is not answered here, even if workers decide. Is this new society to remain based upon consumption and if not, then upon what? Is it to provide for the basic needs of the workers themselves with little or no trade? If there is little or no trade, such a system would be friendlier to the planet. Doing away with profit doesn't do away with trade. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Dougjam • 2 days ago Great piece, Professor Wolff, and I think the problem goes back to Marx himself. Though Das Kapital was a very efficient and thorough analysis of the weaknesses (and danger) of unbridled capitalism, it actually failed to spell out a reasoned and cogent alternative system. Add to that the fact that it appeared in a Russian culture dominated by an essentially illiterate peasantry who were totally ill-equipped for the transition to an egalitarian, industrial economy, it's only natural that the whole game would be commandeered by a surrogate monarch/strong man like Stalin, a patriarchal figure with whom they were familiar. Unfortunately, the Bolshevik agenda did not come with representative government. Though WSDEs, as you suggest, are the logical manifestation of socialism, the concept of socialism itself is a victim of its tortured history and the successful disinformation it's always faced from capitalist quarters anxious to see it never come to pass in the truly effective form you suggest. For me, it's the ultimate irony that a people who so pride themselves on their representative government have been so brain-washed that they can't see that a democratic, representative economy is close to that ideal, or that their 'representative government' has been hijacked by plutocrats. For those interested, some great books on the subject are 'Parecon' by Michael Albert and 'America Beyond Capitalism' by Guy Alperowitz. Dougjam 2 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Geria Dougjam • 2 days ago What strikes me is the fact that people haven't seen that the US Constitution provides only for political rights and not economic ones. That is its greatest flaw. Without economic rights, capitalism guarantees your political system will eventually become an oligarchy or a plutocratic dictatorship, which the US is rapidly becoming. What is needed, besides WSDE's, is a more direct, and less representative, democracy that is less vulnerable to takeover by overbearing economic interests. Much of this change will require changes to the Constitution, perhaps its re-writing. We can't be afraid to do this. •Reply•Share › Avatar Fool Me Once Geria • 2 days ago ' ...the US Constitution provides only for political rights and not economic ones' Really? I suggest you re-read the Constitution - it is largely about the right to live your life free of an overreaching govt (like, say what we have now) and specifically that a man's wages shall not be taxed - it was a reaction to the economic tyranny imposed by Great Britain. But we don't follow the Constution, and people's economic rights are not protected as a result. You are worried about how the people divide wealth, but you should be worried about the biggest hog of all, which is now a govt that is run by and for the benefit of Goldman Sachs, which gives our money to banks, starts wars, and hands monopolies to criminal health care entities and pharmaceuticals. The only reasonable assurance that we will not be raped is to never allow the kind of taxation that we have, nor to hand over control of our currency to private corporations, as was done one hundred years ago when the so called Federal Reserve Bank was created, in stark violation of the Constitution, which provided well for the protection of economic rights. We are now paying the price. We don't need a new Constitution - we just need to follow it. •Reply•Share › Avatar rmk948 Dougjam • 2 days ago Your point about Marx was well taken, but I think that he was more interested in a rigorous analysis of capitalism rather than in a detailed description of post-capitalist society. Marx wore many hats: scholar, activist, political analyst. I think his legacy as a scholar was the most enduring. •Reply•Share › Avatar iwbcman • 2 days ago Thanks Richard. WSDE is exactly there term I have been looking for. Talking to people about co-ops everyone thinks farmer co-ops. Talking to people about worker-owned business everyone thinks of employee stock ownership. Worker Self-Directed Enterprises may be a bit cumbersome but it is sufficiently semantically distinct from other 'occupied' terms. Now the question is how long before this term gets stolen, corrupted and perverted to mean 'been there, done that'. I have been trying to get people to comprehend that without democracy in the workplace the idea of political democracy remains nothing more than an idea. But let's be honest- most americans are scared shitless by anything which is trully democractic, because lo and behold such requires individual accountability and responsibility-most people are content to vote every 10 years and bitch and moan when nothing good comes of it. Most americans still want a BIG MAN to tell them how things are going to be, they don't really want to have a say in the decisions made that effect their lives, they claim to, but they don't really, evidenced by their systemic refusal to demand such. I believe this may be beginning to change, maybe people are beginning to grasp that the problems we confront only exist because of the systemic abdication of responsibility which starts in our neighborhoods and extends to our local, state, regional and national levels. Even getting people to imagine that things don't have to be this way, and yes there exists real-world, not pie-in-the-sky theoretical speculation, but actual WSDE's is really, really hard. And god forbid you bring up the notion of collective worker management, not based on heirarchical systems. People look at you like you are from mars. Democracy in our neighborhoods, our communities, our workplaces- the recipe for real democracy, not the spectacle which we call politics which takes place on tv far, far away with people you'll never meet, much less talk to. And just to add a footnote, I highly suspect that as we start community, after community to begin to change things that our best allies will be people who are nominally politically republican and that our fiercest opponents will be traditional socialists, followed closely by people who self-identify as liberals. I still find it funny how liberal=left exclusively in the USA. Nowhere else in the world is this the case. Long live the legacy and spirit of Occupy. 4 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar Geria iwbcman • 2 days ago Good God, iwbcman, is what you are saying really true? Are MOST Americans afraid of individual accountability and responsibility? If so, we are set up perfectly for plutocratic dictatorship with a side of fascism. I want no BIG MAN telling ME how things are going to be--his decisions are rarely in my best interests, nor those of my community and my planet. 1 •Reply•Share › Avatar iwbcman Geria • a day ago I know your opening question is rhetorical. I cannot speak for most Americans, in fact those who hold the same views I do are in a distinct minority. Forgive me if when speaking american english i tend to over-generalize ... a weakness I share with many. But I cannot help to believe this is so. There are so many examples we see in the media day in and day out it is hard to imagine otherwise. For me individual accountability and responsibility is all about the other-not about myself. The bucks stops here, are you your brothers keeper or not. My brothers and sisters surround me everywhere I look, most of them whose names I will never know, primarily because it's not about me. It's about who I am in the light of others. My ethics of individual accountability and responsibility are doomed to failure but this is why I try, I fail in this daily, my triumph is tomorrow. But perhaps on a less esoteric/spiritual level- how can one be individually accountable and responsible when most have so little to say in the decisions of their daily lives. Virtually every decision is already made, choice, which we collectively see as freedom, is rarely more than selecting from choices already chosen for us. I say 'virtually every' because this rings true from my humble years of experience, not because I believe that literally. To put it differently: I believe that real individual accountability and responsibility is something that can only learned by practice, and this society goes out of it's way to preclude most of us from gaining the experience needed to really be our brothers keeper. Again these may seem like over-generalizations-but most of us have literally no say in the places where we work and the communities we live in. And no voting for a representative does not count. If I am never involved in the decision making which shapes the life I live and the world I live in, how exactly can I be, as an individual, accountable and responsible, in the light of others. Sure I have lots of choices, lots of freedom to choose, amongst choices I would never willingly make. But beyond my engagement in my neighborhood and community, I have damned little say in the laws, rules, regulations, norms and values of where I live. For me what Richard is discussing, namely WSDE, is perhaps but a first step that would allow us to be who we truly are. Why? why such hyperbole and idealistic notions: in WSDE, at least how I understand it, people actually have to work together in an environment of mutual respect(remember WSDE means collective ownership, which means collective decision making and management-which means you are obligated to exercise your voice) , and that such work would take place as a function of our community (not merely interchangeable jobs which can be outsourced or sold away) so our co-workers are also our neighbors(not simply my peers, or those with whom I choose to associate with).(on the surface such might appear to be horrible! less choice, less freedom, less this that and the other....but I'll gladly trade perks,shitty wages, belligerent managers and conniving/competing coworkers for human dignity and the well being of my community) My decisions do not take place in a vacuum, my decisions effect the lives of those around me, as I am affected/effected by the decisions of those around make, NOT symmetrically but inherently asymmetrical because of wonderful things like privilege. Mutual respect is not for me about everyone being nice to one another and getting along: its' about debate, argument, frustration and solidarity. Things which frankly have no place in the typical american workplace, except in perhaps a tiny minority of exceptionally meritocratic professions. I am hardly ever surprised when people make the decisions they do, I know that despite our illusions how utterly limiting the life consequences can be which govern our hands. I am however amazed when in spite of these limitations some of us, sometimes reach beyond. Most evil in this world is done in the name of the good, and the highest good for most is ensuring our kids have food in their bellies. Can I fault the person who in trying to provide for their kids ends up being the cog in the wheel of omnipresent war, environmental destruction and the persistent, incessant destruction of human dignity. Sure I could moralize from afar, but am I any better, in what ways am I or have I been complicit in such? I don't believe in human nature and I am far closer to an aetheist than any religion I have ever heard of, but I understand our behavior as a result of the complex, entangled web of laws, rules, regulations, norms and values over which most of us mere mortals have little if any control-but only because we have systematically abdicated our own rights and responsibilities delegating such decisions to those privileged few. The real irony is that those privileged few believe that someone else is making the decisions for them. Everybody=Nobody Until we take this responsibility ourselves and are held accountable by others, whose names we will not know, but before whom we are beholden, we will simply play the blame game, pass the buck, and fail to be our brothers keepers. Perhaps my observations are askew, perhaps what I see as so vanishingly rare is far more tangible and prevalent than I give it credit for. But I spent 6 months in a tent in downtown Louisville with beautiful people, trying to realize these ideas, people who most americans walk away from, cross the street, or lock their doors when they see 'them' coming. Long live the legacy and spirit of Occupy. 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar jackvandijk iwbcman • 2 days ago Great point. This is called the Rhineland model of corporate governance. Practiced in the norther European countries, the ones that do well. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar isnamthere • 2 days ago A change of the means to our goals is definitely necessary at this juncture. However, we must also re-evaluate our goals. If, as a people, we still want to have it all and engage in ever-expanding growth, then changing to what may be a fairer means of production will only make some people comfortable for a short period of time. We desperately need to change our consumptive and exploitative stances to the world and each other. Isn't there ever any such thing as ENOUGH for people? 5 •Reply•Share › Avatar Geri isnamthere • 2 days ago God yes, there IS such a thing as enough! It is capitalist thinking that has made us understand ourselves in these terms. Nobody needs to have it all, nor can such an individual manage all that can be acquired. To engage in and expect ever-expanding growth is another capitalist notion that spells death for the world ecology as the planet cannot support such a notion. More and more we are recognizing limits, especially in environmental terms--now we must carry it into economic life. Only in recognizing when enough is enough can we find any peace or contentment. 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar 71Magi isnamthere • 2 days ago It is a misconception that the goal of the worker is to 'have it all'. The Haymarket strike in 1886 fought for the 8 hour day and 40 hour week. Workers then and now are willing to work less even if it means less pay. During the 30's Kellogg reduced the work day to 6 hours to make more jobs available. The workers loved it and it took new management 40 years to 'eradicate' the system and get the workers back to 8 hour days. A well written expose on the dilemma faced by workers is here, http://climateandcapitalism.co... 3 •Reply•Share › Avatar Geri 71Magi • 2 days ago 71Magi points out that workers, traditionally, don't appear to want 'having it all' and would like more leisure. I have yet to see one employer in the whole of the US able to understand that. Always, these jerks want us to work more and more hours for less and less pay (that is no raises commensarate with improved production). Clearly employers as a class must be done away with as they just plain don't understand the people working for them, ever. For the employer, his greed for greater and greater profit, growth and expansion are the only operative goals in his life. If anybody 'wants it all' it is he. •Reply•Share › Avatar Hal 71Magi • 2 days ago It might just be a shot in the dark on my part, but the Canadian airline 'Westjet' as I understand it, makes EVERY employee a part owner of the airline. I believe this is the trend we need. 2 •Reply•Share › Avatar Jackie Hal • a day ago Everyone being an owner is meaningless, unless the workers have a large majority of shares. All large 'employee owned' companies have a few large shareholders and the rest hold a few percent of shares combined. I do believe the corporate model is the correct model to fight with, but it has to be flipped on its head. •Reply•Share › Avatar Geria Hal • 2 days ago No Hal. That isn't going to do it. All the Canadian airline is doing is making the employees shareholders in the company. I'm certain not one of them has any power to make airline company decisions; they just decide which capitalists will run the company. You have to be suspicious of any idea put forth by capitalists pretending to offer solutions to problems caused by capitalism. Neither will capitalists help us get rid of capitalism; don't expect it. •Reply•Share › Powered by Disqus Subscribe Add Disqus to your site |