Culture
19 Jun 09
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat would be anarchism. Or as some, like Noam Chomsky, like to call it: libertarian socialism. All this Marxist-Leninist hagiography needs to be done away with.
its really quite interesrting,
Orwell States, 'the only thing for which we can combine is the underlying ideal of Socialism; justice and liberty. But it is hardly strong enough to call this ideal, underlying. It is almost completely forgotten. It has been buried under layer after layer of doctrinaire priggishness, party squabbles, and half bake ...[text shortened]... ld free the world of all sorts of evils, if it could be presented and adopted by the public.
24 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettmm, i think it is an unreality to expect that capitalism shall simply be done away with.
That would be anarchism. Or as some, like Noam Chomsky, like to call it: libertarian socialism. All this Marxist-Leninist hagiography needs to be done away with.
Orwell tells a really funny anecdote. there used to be a column in a publication, the weekly worker, in which there was a section, 'books on the editors table'. for several weeks there had been a certain amount of talk about Shakespeare, , when an incensed reader writes in, 'dear comrade, we don't want to hear about these bourgeoisie writers like Shakespeare, can you give us something a bit more proletarian, etc. ?', the editor wrote back, 'if you will turn to he index of Marx's Capital, you will find that Shakespeare is mentioned several times. Orwell writes that once it had received the sanction of Marx, he became respectable. and this is the point that he makes, that such mentality drives ordinary people away from the socialist cause!
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo do I. That is why I renounced any pretensions toward a violent revolution. I advocate a gradual transformation of the capitalist economy by promoting worker ownership of companies. The elimination of capitalism would not even be necessary in that case. You could have a "mixed" economy with an equal mix of capitalist owned companies and worker owned companies. Let socialism and capitalism freely compete in the marketplace.
mm, i think it is an unreality to expect that capitalism shall simply be done away with.
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot necessarily. You see a greater compression of wages in existing Labor Managed Firms (LMFs) now, for example. The evils of capitalism would be weeded out slowly. The entire point is not to change everything overnight. That's when you get violent resistance. The idea is to ease into these things. Let people get used to it along the way. Then you have an apparently seamless transition. Misguided zealots always want to start with the immediate overthrow of the entire capitalist system, but that is impractical. They should instead concentrate on fostering worker ownership of corporations, which eventually could bring about the demise of capitalism.
Ah yes, this is a noble ideal, but wouldn't the evils that are prevalent under the Capitalist regime, still exist under the duel system, for profit would still be the governing principle.
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Zodiac" is his best one, IMO, and "The Big U" is quite good, too. I hit similar barriers with the Baroqe Cycle.
Neal Stephenson -- I've started two books by him only to hit some barrier a hundred pages in and stop. Cryptonomicon got me very excited (it did indeed seem 'an important book'😉, but I couldn't push on through. Yet I was able to slog all the way through Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoThis from a clown who thinks that the Iranian election was a triumph of democracy.
You are a disgrace to socialism. You have no proof to assert your claims. I can think of plenty of times where the ends and means were completely separate. Try to think outside the box and not be so rigid and conservative.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettcouldn't workers today simply use some of their pay to buy shares in the company, or have some of their remuneration in the form of shares, so their equity in the compny increases over time? after all, top executives are usually already remunerated this way. of course, the ordinary worker has less discretionary income, but still...
So do I. That is why I renounced any pretensions toward a violent revolution. I advocate a gradual transformation of the capitalist economy by promoting worker ownership of companies. The elimination of capitalism would not even be necessary in that case. You could have a "mixed" economy with an equal mix of capitalist owned companies and worker owned companies. Let socialism and capitalism freely compete in the marketplace.
it seems to me that there's nothing standing in the way of workers owning a piece of at least public companies. and in fact a great deal of shares are owned by workers, either directly or indirectly (through superannuation funds etc) at present. unless, by "workers" we are restricting the term to blue-collar factory types. office workers are "workers" too, though.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by BlackampThat is true. There are a surprising number of firms that are already wholly or partially employee owned. But it is unclear to me how much this translates into worker control of those firms' policies and practices. Unless the workers have a vote in the running of the firm, either through representative or direct democracy, employee stock ownership programs (ESOP) in and of themselves might have little impact on economic democracy. ESOP is a necessary first step, but if it doesn't include some substantial degree of participatory workplace democracy, it would be insufficient.
couldn't workers today simply use some of their pay to buy shares in the company, or have some of their remuneration in the form of shares, so their equity in the compny increases over time? after all, top executives are usually already remunerated this way. of course, the ordinary worker has less discretionary income, but still...
it seems to me that th ...[text shortened]... stricting the term to blue-collar factory types. office workers are "workers" too, though.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by rwingettLet me ask you this.Say you start a business,are you gonna let a employee democracy take place? How would you make money? That is the point of going into business in the first place,correct?
That is true. There are a surprising number of firms that are already wholly or partially employee owned. But it is unclear to me how much this translates into worker control of those firms' policies and practices. Unless the workers have a vote in the running of the firm, either through representative or direct democracy, employee stock ownership programs ...[text shortened]... nclude some substantial degree of participatory workplace democracy, it would be insufficient.
25 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettthere is representative democracy in principle, as shareholders get to vote for the directors of the company, who in turn determine the policies and practices of the company. shareholders also get to vote on certain important company issues. but it is 'one share, one vote', not 'one man, one vote', so in practice the institutional shareholders (i.e. investment funds) tend to get their way. then again, these investment funds represent indirect ownership of the company by workers who have invested their spare income into the funds. also, the companies that manage these funds may have shareholders of their own.
That is true. There are a surprising number of firms that are already wholly or partially employee owned. But it is unclear to me how much this translates into worker control of those firms' policies and practices. Unless the workers have a vote in the running of the firm, either through representative or direct democracy, employee stock ownership programs nclude some substantial degree of participatory workplace democracy, it would be insufficient.
so, if employees do choose to take a stake in the company they work for (or any other), they get a say in its running.
at the end of the day, the current situation is probably like political representative democracy: you get to vote for your representatives, but you may have to live with a different representative than the one you voted for, and even if your favoured candidate wins, he may still implement policies you don't like. then you can hope he gets voted out at the next election. and, as i think Churchill said, 'democracy is the worst political system ever invented...except for all the others'.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, given the - correct - assertion that there already exist many companies that permit of and encourage employees to take a stake in the company, it seems that the basis for expanded workplace democracy already exists.
Let me ask you this.Say you start a business,are you gonna let a employee democracy take place? How would you make money? That is the point of going into business in the first place,correct?
Companies that permit and encourage worker stakeholders already make money (or they would have folded by now); what makes you think that strengthening and deepening that situation would be detrimental to the companies in question? Or that a new-start company that did so would not be able to make money?
As an ameliorative measure and as a business model, encouraging worker stakeholding can and does have beneficial effects for both employer and employee.
Sounds to me like you have an aversion to participation in principle, because, perhaps, you are beholden to a particular model of capitalism. Why the snap-judgement antipathy?
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by DrKFmaybe i do not grasp where you guys are coming from w/the democracy thing.I have a small business,50 employees max when its booming for me.I can not see what i envision as a democracy happening here.They are treated well.Frequent bonuses ,very good pay,but I say how things are going to be .there is no vote on the matter. I could not fathom that. Perhaps on a larger scale it is differnt.
Well, given the - correct - assertion that there already exist many companies that permit of and encourage employees to take a stake in the company, it seems that the basis for expanded workplace democracy already exists.
Companies that permit and encourage worker stakeholders already make money (or they would have folded by now); what makes you think that s ...[text shortened]... perhaps, you are beholden to a particular model of capitalism. Why the snap-judgement antipathy?
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Blackampyou have managed to elucidate quite clearly in the last paragraph what the American electoral system is really like, i thank you for that, for i myself having struggled a number of times to fully comprehend it. its ok for you guys, because you are born into it, and perhaps never think about it, but to us, to vote for someone, who may or may not represent our true interests by implementing policies that we do not like or who does not represent our true interests, is quite alien. here the situation is a little more simple, you have candidates, you make an evaluation of their policies (usually promises that you hope they will keep) and you vote for who you agree with, if enough people are like minded, the candidate gets to go to parliament and represent your interests, if enough people nationally are like minded, the elected candidates form a government, they elect a leader from among themselves and start governing , at least this is how i understand it works, although i myself have never voted, nor ever will 🙂
there is representative democracy in principle, as shareholders get to vote for the directors of the company, who in turn determine the policies and practices of the company. shareholders also get to vote on certain important company issues. but it is 'one share, one vote', not 'one man, one vote', so in practice the institutional shareholders (i.e. investm aid, 'democracy is the worst political system ever invented...except for all the others'.