> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:08 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Marxism > > > On 10/05/2006, at 6:12 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > >> > >> Actually, Marx may have envisioned more a bottom-up mutual-interest > >> based society. Collective ownership, as in social democracies, is a > >> *growing* phenomenon. Just look at the rise of collective owneship of > >> football clubs, for example. From only a couple 10 years ago in the > >> UK to over a hundred mutual trusts. > > > > Our experience in this is much longer. > > I doubt it, as I shall now explain: From the formation of the > Football League in the 1880s, almost all football clubs used to be > "members' clubs". run by and for the members;
OK, I stand corrected. This predates the Packers' example. But, my main point, that this type of collective ownership has been around for almost a century need only be changed to being around for over a century. > > > > In addition, there were much more significant economic > > organizations that > > date back to the early 20th century in the US. Rural co-ops have > > existed > > here for about 100 years....and are now big businesses....and they > > are still > > technically co-ops....owned by the producers. > > They're world-wide too, as are building societies, credit unions. I thought so, but I didn't want to presume. Labor Unions can also be seen in this fashion. My point was that this is not really a new phenomenon....and I don't think we differ on that. > >> > >> Marxist government is an oxymoron. By its very definition, Marxism > >> requires the emergent behaviour of a networked population, not the > >> imposition of a planned economy through a police state. > > > > That is the long term end state, yes. The dictatorship of the > > proletariat > > was a needed intermediate step. Individual rights are meaningless > > in a > > Marxist context because everything is economic. > > Well, in one sense. I think that that's what's become clear. Not the > failure of Marx's ideas themselves, but the implementation (similarly > to blaming Darwin for eugenics, in a way). > > > > The key to me is that Marx wasn't interested in individuals, only > > classes. > > Thus, individual freedoms were considered a non-issue. > > Sure. I'd argue that a system that only looks at classes or nations or large groups of people are inherently problematic when it comes to setting up states according to the principals of the system. > > > > Emergent behavior of networking is a modern concept....I'd argue > > that the > > historical dielectic is the best tool to understand > > Marxism....because it is > > the tool of Marxism. > > Likewise, genetics is a modern concept, but it's key to understanding > Darwin. I think we're learning ways now in which Marx's ideas *could* > flourish and succeed. He had some great insight for his day (and > plenty of terrible ones too), but we're only now starting to develop > the tools to really be able to implement some of the good ones. And > we're probably nowhere near socially mature enough yet. I think the historical dialectic and the idea of alienation are worthwhile. But, having spent a semester studying Marx, his ideas of the end state, after the dictatorship of the proleatariate > > > > And, the real split within Marxists was the Stalin-Trostky split. > > Lenin > > was considered to be a good Marxist writer/leader....Few Marxists > > who I > > talked with during the '60s and '70s took after Lenin's > > implementation of > > the dictatorship of the proletariat. > > That's true. > > What I think we're seeing is that private ownership of public > resources isn't working - it's just as inefficient as the > nationalised behemoths or the planned economies. If it were just as inefficient, then why did China's and India's GDP take off after they went towards market economies? Why has the US economy, probably the most market oriented of the large economies, outperformed Europe and Japan over the last 15 years? Isn't working is a phrase I'd definitely attach to the Cuban or the North Korean economies, or the Soviet economy before the fall of the USSR. I think one could argue that the market economies do not work as well as we would like, but the continued productivity growth in the US indicates that the fundamentals of the economy are sound...even if Bush's policies aren't. >Plus democracy is failing in the West - countries without compulsory voting >have had decreasing and poorly representative turnouts, and partisanship is >putting political interests before the interests of the majority. If you look at the opinion polls taken of all potential voters and those likely to vote in the US, there is a few percentage point swing between the results, but that's all. So, relatively low turnout has an impact, but it isn't as though there is a mass of voters to the left of the Democratic party that's just not voting. Politicians have been putting political interests first since the advent of political parties, at least in the US. We've muddled through for 200 years. Do you see an indication that this is about to end, and that democracy is about to fail? > I'd like to see new models of public ownership where public services > aren't nationalised in the old sense of "run by the government". but > run as co-ops in which every voting adult has a share, and so the > customers have the ability to directly call account of failing boards > of directors. There are over 900 electric co-ops in the US, providing electricity to over 30 million Americans http://www.amec.org/coops_in_am.html IIRC, this dates back to the '30s. They speak of customer/owners, which is what you are suggesting. So, they've been around a long time and have not seemed to be radically different from other companies providing electricity. >It's worked with several companies (and to return to > football, just look at Barcelona!). I really fail to see why > profiteering companies should provide our water and electricity and > health services. Run a nationally owned company like a private > company, and we're all better off. If we could repeal Weber's law (a bureaucrat will work for his own interests, not the interests for which his job was created), that would be nice...but no one has solved that problem yet. Semi-public and private companies have been in the energy field in the US for almost a century now, and they seem to be close to equally efficient. In the US, utility prices have been regulated by the states, so the profits have not been boundless. Experiments in market pricing have had mixed results. California tried to same money when the spot price was below the long term price....this worked until the surplus of electricity went away, and the market prices went way up....as well as being subjected to gaming by individual suppliers who could make a lot of money by taking some of their supply offline and then charging a lot for the rest of it. I think that continuing to tinker with the public/private/coop balance is worthwhile. But, I don't think there is something radically new here. Finally, regarding health care, the US seems to have a public-private mix that reminds me of Washington DC (a city of Yankee charm and Southern ingenuity). It's a mess that is, in many ways, the worse of both worlds. There is room for improvement...which is good because the US is expected to spend 20% of GDP on health in a decade or so. > But we also need to leave room for entrepreneurs and private > companies who wish to compete in the market, because that's where > innovation lies. No argument with your idea of keeping a mixed economy, or the suggestion that co-ops have their place in such an economy. I'm on record as saying that a pure market economy, without any governmental interference, doesn't work. It leads to depressions....and that no economy has been close to market since 1932. My point is that these are not brand new things...and are not candidates for the vehicles for massive changes in our economic or political systems. Rather, I see tinkering with the system we have for the foreseeable future. If and when a significant change comes, it will founded on something we aren't talking about yet. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
