On 11/05/2006, at 8:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
[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.
My point was not that it's a new mechanism, but that it is growing
(again) as it fosters long-term stability.
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.
No, I'm not arguing. I'm just saying that people are taking a new
view of social responsibility and seeing collective accountability as
a good way to engender 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.
Absolutely. That's why communism has failed at a national level by
itself in nearly every case.
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
...I'll give you another chance to finish that thought... ;)
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?
Wrong measure of efficiency for my point. It costs more to the end
user, for a reduce level of service, is the lesson learnt from
privitisation of railways, roads and utilities in Europe and
Australia (and probably America too, if the California blackouts are
a good guide). I'm not talking shareholder return or total turnover.
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.
So would I!
I
think one could argue that the market economies do not work as well
as we
would like,
That's my point.
but the continued productivity growth in the US indicates that
the fundamentals of the economy are sound...even if Bush's policies
aren't.
If you think shareholder returns or GDP are the most important thing.
I don't.
I'm not arguing for the abolition of the market, just for some public
services that are effectively everybody's right - water, light,
transport - to be collectively accountable.
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.
No, there's a mass of people not voting full stop. Don't care which
way they vote, just get out and vote...
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?
No, I think we're just going to keep on muddling through, but that it
could be so much better.
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.
Apart from direct accountability. Can't talk about the level of
service, I don't live there.
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.
Not bureaucrats. Employees. Same as any other company. Only
difference is the Board of Directors and the Chairman are elected.
CEO and everyone else are appointed. That's about it. But it makes
for significantly improved accountability. (I'm actually talking
about MORE democracy...)
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.
That's always a help.
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.
It's not. It's just an attempt to make greater accountability.
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.
Which is an investment. A healthy population is more productive by far.
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.
That I agree with.
I think we're not actually too far apart on this.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
