"Stakeholder co-management": replace "workers control"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The original thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-controli-t144527/index.html) sorta got off topic, and I was clearly addressing more economic matters than politics or the state.

I've outlined my reservation with "workers control," and I'm working on reservations with "workers self-management," "industrial democracy," and of course "co-determination."

So what about stakeholder co-management? Right now the corporations are legally obligated to look out for shareholder interests first (a problem with co-determination going too far), but this would have to change. Stakeholder co-management also doesn't imply autonomous or semi-autonomous units in a market economy like "workers self-management" does, courtesy of Yugoslavia under Tito.

[If you want to be more class-specific, then just add "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder."]

[Jazzhands]

We already have, in a sense, "stake-holder co-management." The thing that comes to mind is corporate board meetings among the highest shareholders (those that financially have the highest stake in a company.) I guess Worker-Stakeholder co-management is a little bit better, but what that suggests is that the workers all have some kind of bullshit stock option, but says nothing about what they actually have. We should just avoid "stake-holder" altogether, since that already implies large amounts of stock ownership and other facets of the higher ranks of capitalist corporations. It also gives the workplace a sense of being run on self-interest as opposed to the communal good. Co-management sounds fine in general, but self-management just flows off the tongue better.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Stakeholder" /= "stockholder" or "shareholder"

FYI for other posters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)


A corporate stakeholder is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist." The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

[...]

Internal Stakeholders - Market (or Primary) Stakeholders are those that engage in economic transactions with the business. (For example stockholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees)

External Stakeholders - Non-Market (or Secondary) Stakeholders are those who - although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the business - are affected by or can affect its actions. (For example the general public, communities, activist groups, business support groups, and the media)


The thing that comes to mind is corporate board meetings among the highest shareholders (those that financially have the highest stake in a company.)

Do they really have the highest stake? With highly leveraged/indebted companies, it is usually argued that those who have the highest financial stake are the creditors. Where a community is formed around a medium-sized company, that community and especially its workforce could have a higher stake than the company's ownership.

[ckaihatsu]

So what about stakeholder co-management?


No.

We covered this last month at this thread:


Shouldn't a Marxist be able to manipulate the market?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/shouldnt-marxist-able-t142819/index.html

[Revolutionair]

Didn't I already supply an anti-thesis to that hypothesis?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1889342&postcount=13

edit: sorry ckaihatsu, I misread your post. Also I didn't understand any of the pictures you uploaded in that thread.

[Revolutionair]

On topic: I have some troubles equating socialism with having the same % of stocks like everyone else.
Socialism is when there are no private means of productions. The 'ownership' of something is by who is closest to it. Socialism is revolutionary. There is a constant change of force. When ever someone is at the top of a pyramid, that pyramid gets thrown down. Revolutionary egalitarianism, egalitarianism in terms of power that is, not in terms of distribution.

[RED DAVE]

So what about stakeholder co-management? Right now the corporations are legally obligated to look out for shareholder interests first (a problem with co-determination going too far), but this would have to change. Stakeholder co-management also doesn't imply autonomous or semi-autonomous units in a market economy like "workers self-management" does, courtesy of Yugoslavia under Tito.

[If you want to be more class-specific, then just add "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder."]Jeez, Comrade, could you maybe come up with a more bourgeois formulation? Why not just use "shareholder management" and conceive of socialism as a giant corporation in which everyone owns one share.

What's wrong with good old WORKERS CONTROL?

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, most corporate stakeholders are not shareholders, and I'm not advocating any form of distributism.

"Control" is a slithery word. It's nowhere near the scope of what a typical management does. Even within the limited sphere of "control," there are inconsistencies.

[Ravachol]

Again, most corporate stakeholders are not shareholders, and I'm not advocating any form of distributism.

"Control" is a slithery word. It's nowhere near the scope of what a typical management does. Even within the limited sphere of "control," there are inconsistencies.

Why the proletariat would want to 'manage' Capitalism, however, is beyond me....

I thought this was a revolutionary leftist forum. One would expect to see an advocacy of communal ownership of all social structures in a horizontal fashion, you know, communism. Not 'stakeholdership' (whatever cross-class nonsense that may be) of corporations within the Capitalist mode of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So why not just drop the slogans "workers control" and "workers self-management" altogether and go for the maximum? Oh yeah, you're doing just that. I'm addressing this to those still enamoured with those two slogans and terms, as a means of moving the masses into immediate action and all. In Venezuela there are moves towards "co-management" or "cogestion" like Germany's "co-determination," yet nobody here is calling it class-collaborationist for the "co-" prefix.

[Kléber]

While we're at it, let's replace the word "revolution" with "politico-dynamic actualization," we could also drop "socialism" in favor of "technoprolecratic absolutism" and we may as well trade in the tired and worn "communism" for a shiny new "megabureaucratic centripetalism." I can't wait to work these terms into catchy slogans for use on the streets.

[RED DAVE]

Again, most corporate stakeholders are not shareholders, and I'm not advocating any form of distributism.

"Control" is a slithery word. It's nowhere near the scope of what a typical management does. Even within the limited sphere of "control," there are inconsistencies.Again, what's wrong with WORKERS POWER or WORKERS CONTROL?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

In Venezuela there are moves towards "co-management" or "cogestion" like Germany's "co-determination," yet nobody here is calling it class-collaborationist for the "co-" prefix.Well, then, let me be the first:"co-management," "cogestion" and "co-determination," where the workers share power with management is class collaboration.

While it might be permissible, as a transitional demand, in order to expose the fact that the capitalist class will never share power, to have any illusions that this is anything but class collaboration is ridiculous.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Again, what's wrong with WORKERS POWER or WORKERS CONTROL?


(Shhhhhhhhhh, he's talking to the Venezuela crowd, speaking their political language so that he can out-fox them and move them leftward...!)(Exciting!)





Well, then, let me be the first:"co-management," "cogestion" and "co-determination," where the workers share power with management is class collaboration.

While it might be permissible, as a transitional demand, in order to expose the fact that the capitalist class will never share power, to have any illusions that this is anything but class collaboration is ridiculous.


No -- my understanding is that those terms *do* mean workers' power. For trying to be *technically accurate* in style they're not bad terms, actually, though I find myself using 'co-administration'....

[ckaihatsu]

The *point* here is that DNZ is trying to find a "legal" / material definition to use for the networking of worker-controlled enterprises in a left-leaning place like Venezuela, when such a network has a capitalist past, capital-based ties and (arguable) obligations, and is trying to extricate itself from such a general economic environment of predatory interests.





The original thread sorta got off topic, and I was clearly addressing more economic matters than politics or the state.

I've outlined my reservation with "workers control," and I'm working on reservations with "workers self-management," "industrial democracy," and of course "co-determination."

So what about stakeholder co-management? Right now the corporations are legally obligated to look out for shareholder interests first (a problem with co-determination going too far), but this would have to change. Stakeholder co-management also doesn't imply autonomous or semi-autonomous units in a market economy like "workers self-management" does, courtesy of Yugoslavia under Tito.

[If you want to be more class-specific, then just add "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder."]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, then, let me be the first:"co-management," "cogestion" and "co-determination," where the workers share power with management is class collaboration.

While it might be permissible, as a transitional demand, in order to expose the fact that the capitalist class will never share power, to have any illusions that this is anything but class collaboration is ridiculous.

RED DAVE

Again, the problem with "workers control" is in the numerous definitions of control. There are more well-defined and more well-known positions on control than Trotsky's hack TP, but the problem is that these positions conflict with one another.

"Stakeholder" poses the question of "Which stakeholders?" and prioritizing them.


For trying to be *technically accurate* in style they're not bad terms, actually, though I find myself using 'co-administration'....

That's the point of this thread: accuracy instead of cheap sloganeering.


The *point* here is that DNZ is trying to find a "legal" / material definition to use for the networking of worker-controlled enterprises in a left-leaning place like Venezuela, when such a network has a capitalist past, capital-based ties and (arguable) obligations, and is trying to extricate itself from such a general economic environment of predatory interests.


While we're at it, let's replace the word "revolution" with "politico-dynamic actualization," we could also drop "socialism" in favor of "technoprolecratic absolutism" and we may as well trade in the tired and worn "communism" for a shiny new "megabureaucratic centripetalism." I can't wait to work these terms into catchy slogans for use on the streets.

I'm not a post-modernist. :glare:

[RED DAVE]

The *point* here is that DNZ is trying to find a "legal" / material definition to use for the networking of worker-controlled enterprises in a left-leaning place like Venezuela, when such a network has a capitalist past, capital-based ties and (arguable) obligations, and is trying to extricate itself from such a general economic environment of predatory interests.The only way that this network of work-controlled enterprises can "extricate itself from such a general economic environment of predatory interests" is by a workers revolution.

A condition of workers control in a capitalist country (yes, Virginia, Venezuela is still capitalist) is a condition of dual power. It is unstable and must either go forward towards workers power or backwards to ... .

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Again, the problem with "workers control" is in the numerous definitions of control. There are more well-defined and more well-known positions on control than Trotsky's hack TP, but the problem is that these positions conflict with one another.This may well be true if you start splitting hairs, but it would seem to me that a condition of:

"workers power" or workers control"

as opposed to

"bourgeois power" or "bourgeois control"

or

"bureaucratic power" or "bureaucratic control,"

is pretty fucking obvious.


"Stakeholder" poses the question of "Which stakeholders?" and prioritizing them."Stakeholder" is a tricky bourgeois term from bourgeois politics. It's purpose is to conceal class interests. It's kind of like the term "entitlements." It excludes the notion of class power. Why fuck with it? The question to be posed isn't "which stakeholder" but "which class."


That's the point of this thread: accuracy instead of cheap sloganeering.If you think that "workers power" or "workers control" is cheap sloganeering, I would submit that you have missed the entire point of Marxism.


I'm not a post-modernist. :glare:Could've fooled me. :bored:

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

[Dual power] is unstable and must either go forward towards workers power or backwards to ... .


...to...

...yes, to centripetalism -- we know. I, for the record, am a 'left centrifugalist'.


= D

[Die Neue Zeit]

This may well be true if you start splitting hairs, but it would seem to me that a condition of:

"workers power" or workers control"

as opposed to

"bourgeois power" or "bourgeois control"

or

"bureaucratic power" or "bureaucratic control,"

is pretty fucking obvious.

I apologize for not being clearer.

"Workers control" cons workers into thinking they'll get full management, but then it usually gets scaled back to a mere checking function.

"Workers self-management" implies too much of a cooperatives emphasis. Yugoslavia under Tito is just too much for "libertarian communists" to put forward an effective alternative definition.

Both terms imply parochialism, and I'll explain below.


"Stakeholder" is a tricky bourgeois term from bourgeois politics. It's purpose is to conceal class interests. It's kind of like the term "entitlements." It excludes the notion of class power. Why fuck with it? The question to be posed isn't "which stakeholder" but "which class."

I said in my OP: If you want to be more class-specific, then just add "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder." Alternatively, add "working-class" as a prefix to "stakeholder."

Another point of "stakeholder" is to emphasize participation by most kinds of customers and by some external stakeholders, from my wiki quote above: general public, communities, and activist groups. Neither "workers control" nor "workers self-management" do this, hence their parochialism.


If you think that "workers power" or "workers control" is cheap sloganeering, I would submit that you have missed the entire point of Marxism.

Educate, agitate, and organize. "Workers control" doesn't educate enough.

[Die Neue Zeit]

...to...

...yes, to centripetalism -- we know. I, for the record, am a 'left centrifugalist'.


= D


The *point* here is that DNZ is trying to find a "legal" / material definition to use for the networking of worker-controlled enterprises in a left-leaning place like Venezuela, when such a network has a capitalist past, capital-based ties and (arguable) obligations, and is trying to extricate itself from such a general economic environment of predatory interests.

I'm looking for something less than systemic collective worker management - where "worker" tackles class, "systemic" refers to the economic system, and "collective" addresses participants by workers in other economic units as suppliers and consumers (which "workplace democracy" doesn't) but also gets past market relations (which "workers self-management" doesn't).

However, this something less than systemic collective worker management should truly empower workers while shedding reformist illusions. Neither "workers control" nor "workers self-management" do this, and ditto with "industrial democracy."

["Systemic collective worker management" is hard to sloganize, indeed.]

[Jazzhands]

I apologize for not being clearer.

"Workers control" cons workers into thinking they'll get full management, but then it usually gets scaled back to a mere checking function.


I've never heard of it being used that way. Control means control. What you're describing is something like the checks and balances system. That is definitely not what anyone thinks of when they hear "workers' control."



"Workers self-management" implies too much of a cooperatives emphasis. Yugoslavia under Tito is just too much for "libertarian communists" to put forward an effective alternative definition.

I can actually see where you're coming from with this. Perhaps a better term for the Tito system (if we wanted to go down this road) would be "market-based workers' cooperation." As opposed to the idea of workers' self-management, which is described by proponents as "non-market libertarianism."


I said in my OP: If you want to be more class-specific, then just add "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder." Alternatively, add "working-class" as a prefix to "stakeholder."

That sounds real catchy. Working-class-stakeholder co-management? Brevity is the soul of wit, so be brief.


Another point of "stakeholder" is to emphasize participation by most kinds of customers and by some external stakeholders, from my wiki quote above: general public, communities, and activist groups. Neither "workers control" nor "workers self-management" do this, hence their parochialism.

Good point. But stakeholder implies that the person has a position with the company/group/whatever. It sounds too much like "shareholder." Despite the comment about "sloganeering," the point of a name is to offer an easy to remember way to recall information at will. Imagine that instead of saying a person's name, you would have to identify him by his physical features every time you see him. And what you have here isn't even easy to remember.


Educate, agitate, and organize. "Workers control" doesn't educate enough.

Yeah, but your monstrous word jumble doesn't serve to agitate or organize at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've never heard of it being used that way. Control means control. What you're describing is something like the checks and balances system. That is definitely not what anyone thinks of when they hear "workers' control."

I'll explain more on this outside the communication channels provided by this board, if you're interested.


I can actually see where you're coming from with this. Perhaps a better term for the Tito system (if we wanted to go down this road) would be "market-based workers' cooperation." As opposed to the idea of workers' self-management, which is described by proponents as "non-market libertarianism."

Good that you're playing ball with me here. "Workers cooperation" for the Tito system sounds too catch-all. Workers can "cooperate" to job cuts, wage cuts, etc.


That sounds real catchy. Working-class-stakeholder co-management? Brevity is the soul of wit, so be brief.

No hyphen goes before "stakeholder" unless the prefix is only one word ("worker-stakeholder co-management"). ;) It is more appropriate for something like a legal document than a protest slogan.


Good point. But stakeholder implies that the person has a position with the company/group/whatever.

Please explain how customers, the general public, etc. "have a position with the company." :confused:


It sounds too much like "shareholder."

Or stockholder, and I concede this problem to you. Truth be told, "stakeholder" doesn't come from mere bourgeois literature, but from "corporate social responsibility" PR material. I still chose it because of the legal obligation that corporations have to shareholders/stockholders.


Despite the comment about "sloganeering," the point of a name is to offer an easy to remember way to recall information at will. Imagine that instead of saying a person's name, you would have to identify him by his physical features every time you see him. And what you have here isn't even easy to remember.

Yeah, but your monstrous word jumble doesn't serve to agitate or organize at all.

"Co-management" seeks to educate and organize, while "stakeholder" is at least an initial educational attempt. You're right that it doesn't serve to agitate, but formal political programs (neither action nor electoral platforms) aim for a balance of educate-agitate-organize that favours education over agitation. ;)

[RED DAVE]

This may well be true if you start splitting hairs, but it would seem to me that a condition of:

"workers power" or workers control"


as opposed to

"bourgeois power" or "bourgeois control"

or

"bureaucratic power" or "bureaucratic control,"

is pretty fucking obvious.
I apologize for not being clearer.It's a disease of our time. :D


"Workers control" cons workers into thinking they'll get full management, but then it usually gets scaled back to a mere checking function.I presume you're talking about the bogus management sharing proposition that have been floating around like turds in a sewer for decades. Of course they're con jobs. That's what they're supposed to be. And giving them any credence is ridiculous.


"Workers self-management" implies too much of a cooperatives emphasis. Yugoslavia under Tito is just too much for "libertarian communists" to put forward an effective alternative definition.Why would anyone want to sue a slogan like "workers self-management"? We're talking about "workers power" or "workers control."

"Workers self-management" Both terms imply parochialism, and I'll explain below.[/quote[Please do.


"Stakeholder" is a tricky bourgeois term from bourgeois politics. It's purpose is to conceal class interests. It's kind of like the term "entitlements." It excludes the notion of class power. Why fuck with it? The question to be posed isn't "which stakeholder" but "which class."
I said in my OP: If you want to be more class-specific, then just add "worker-" as a prefix to "stakeholder." Alternatively, add "working-class" as a prefix to "stakeholder."Why bother with a bourgeois term like "stakeholder" in the first place?


Another point of "stakeholder" is to emphasize participation by most kinds of customers and by some external stakeholders, from my wiki quote above: general public, communities, and activist groups.Iin other words, you're more concerned with castng a spell over the petit-bourgeloisie than communicating with workers.


Neither "workers control" nor "workers self-management" do this, hence their parochialism.I've never advocated using "wolrkers self-management." "Workers control" and "workers power" are just fine.


If you think that "workers power" or "workers control" is cheap sloganeering, I would submit that you have missed the entire point of Marxism.
Educate, agitate, and organize.I've been doing that for awhile now.


"Workers control" doesn't educate enough.According to who?

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

"Workers self-management" Both terms imply parochialism, and I'll explain below.

Except that you never do. It does not imply parochialism. That is a longstanding Leninist fallacy.

Consider the Spanish revolution. the aim was workers self-management. was their aim to operate cooperatives in a market economy? no. the means of production were to be owned by the people and allocated to worker organizations to produce in accordance with some sort of social plan. workers self-management means that there is no managerial hierarchy. workers collectively possess the power to manage the workplace. They make the decisions.

As the participatory planning model makes clear, workers collective possession of management authority is not inconsistent with social planning. Under that model, workers themselves develop plans for their own workplace or industry. People as consumers develop plans for what they want to request to be produced. Within the planning process there is a process of mutual adjustment of plans, based on both workers and consumers having budgets. As projected prices of inputs and outputs are adjusted in the course of the planning process (a process of interaction or social negotiation), workers adjust their plans to stay in budget and so do communities (who consume the products of labor).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Planning is only one function of management.


I presume you're talking about the bogus management sharing proposition that have been floating around like turds in a sewer for decades. Of course they're con jobs. That's what they're supposed to be. And giving them any credence is ridiculous.

No, I'm talking about the left itself using "workers control" to con workers into thinking they'll get full management, but then backtrack and interpret this as a checking function or something. That's what the Bolsheviks themselves did on the road to one-man management.


In other words, you're more concerned with castng a spell over the petit-bourgeioisie than communicating with workers.

There are two groups of workers here: workers as producers and workers as consumers. The slogans I've been criticizing all fall short to address the part about workers as consumers.


I've been doing that for awhile now.

You've been agitating, agitating, agitating. ;)


Except that you never do. It does not imply parochialism. That is a longstanding Leninist fallacy.

Consider the Spanish revolution. the aim was workers self-management. was their aim to operate cooperatives in a market economy? no. the means of production were to be owned by the people and allocated to worker organizations to produce in accordance with some sort of social plan. workers self-management means that there is no managerial hierarchy. workers collectively possess the power to manage the workplace. They make the decisions.

As the participatory planning model makes clear, workers collective possession of management authority is not inconsistent with social planning. Under that model, workers themselves develop plans for their own workplace or industry. People as consumers develop plans for what they want to request to be produced. Within the planning process there is a process of mutual adjustment of plans, based on both workers and consumers having budgets. As projected prices of inputs and outputs are adjusted in the course of the planning process (a process of interaction or social negotiation), workers adjust their plans to stay in budget and so do communities (who consume the products of labor).

Michael Lebowitz is hardly a "Leninist":

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/lebowitz241005.html


But there was a problem in Yugoslav self-management that is implied in its name -- "Self." True, workers in each firm determined the direction of their enterprises by themselves. But, they also looked out primarily for themselves. The focus of workers within each firm was on their own self-interest, their collective self-interest. What was missing was a sense of solidarity with society as a whole, a sense of responsibility to and responsibility for society. Instead, the emphasis was upon self-orientation, selfishness. In some respects, it was like the worst of capitalist mythology, the concept of "The Invisible Hand": the idea was that if each collective follows its own self-interest, the society as a whole will benefit. In fact, the invisible hand in Yugoslavia operated to increase inequality, to break down the solidarity of society -- leading, ultimately, to the dismembering of Yugoslavia.

Co-management in Venezuela is an attempt to avoid this particular mistake. Co-management implies a particular kind of partnership -- a partnership between the workers of an enterprise and society. Thus, it stresses that enterprises do not belong to the workers alone -- they are meant to be operated in the interest of the whole society. In other words, co-management is not intended only to remove the self-interested capitalist, leaving in place self-interested workers; rather, it is also meant to change the purpose of productive activity. It means the effort to find ways both to allow for the development of the full potential of workers and also for every member of society, all working people, to be the beneficiaries of co-management.

[syndicat]

Lebowitz is maybe not a Leninist. But he's clearly a Marxist. And this fallacy has a long Marxist pedigree. Lebowitz falls into this fallacy in this piece. "Co-management" is just a scheme whereby the state managers, to whom the workers are actually subordinate, can claim they represent "society." This is classic state socialist fallacy...equating the state with the interests of society.

Note that Lebowitz doesn't talk about the real source of self-management, which lies in the libertarian wing of socialism. The largest such movement historically was the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement, altho revolutionary syndicalism also had large movements in other countries and has always advocated workers self-management. As Diego Abad de Santillan put it, it was never the intention of the Spanish movement for workers to be independent proprietors of the places where they work, but to be administor the workplace on behalf of the people.

"Self" in self-management means that the workers collectively have the power to manage the labor process. It doesn't follow from this that there is no means of social accountability other than the market. In the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist case, they proposed a system of social planning that would involve input from neighborhood assemblies and a key role for worker congresses.

[syndicat]

Just for the record, I'll point out that historically "workers management of industry" (AKA self-management) has been combined with 3 different proposals for how the collective management by workers could be made accountable to the larger society:

1. market socialists propose this is to be via market relations (as with David Schweickart, Yugoslav "self-managment")

2. grassroots central planning (via proposals being filtered up from the assemblies in the workplaces to some larger delegate body, as in De Leon's National Industrial Congress, or the proposals for a national congress of factory organizations proposed in fall 1917 by Russian anarcho-syndicalists)

3. some form of negotiated coordination between people as consumers and as producers. earliest version of this was guild socialism. Albert & Hahnel's participatory planning. and Pat Devine's version which leaves more of a role for the state, especially for broader scope infrastructure planning, and also leaves some role for markets (tho he wants to distinguish this from "market forces", yet I find his distinction opaque).

[ckaihatsu]

Except that you never do. It does not imply parochialism. That is a longstanding Leninist fallacy.

Consider the Spanish revolution. the aim was workers self-management. was their aim to operate cooperatives in a market economy? no. the means of production were to be owned by the people and allocated to worker organizations to produce in accordance with some sort of social plan. workers self-management means that there is no managerial hierarchy. workers collectively possess the power to manage the workplace. They make the decisions.

As the participatory planning model makes clear, workers collective possession of management authority is not inconsistent with social planning. Under that model, workers themselves develop plans for their own workplace or industry. People as consumers develop plans for what they want to request to be produced. Within the planning process there is a process of mutual adjustment of plans, based on both workers and consumers having budgets. As projected prices of inputs and outputs are adjusted in the course of the planning process (a process of interaction or social negotiation), workers adjust their plans to stay in budget and so do communities (who consume the products of labor).


My position is that DNZ is over-thinking this stuff. Even in an (arguably) "transitional" or "circumscribed" situation like that of Venezuela's, the point should be to raise the autonomy and interconnected autonomies of the workers who are actually doing the work, throughout all political and economic intersections and exchanges. In any ambiguous or questionable material situations the benefit of the doubt should go to the workers' position, in the interests of current and future productive activity.

Regarding a system of abstracted values that can be exchanged for material goods and services, I am firmly of the position that attempting to use any kind of system like that is inherently problematic. It will invite temporization and financialization, creating a whole additional layer of political overhead to go with it.

I've resolved this issue of labor-effort-representing abstract values, through a model of labor credits that are labor-hour-based and also accommodate the factors of hazard and difficulty. It's at my blog entry.

Additionally, it's possible to go off of abstracted values altogether -- arguably -- by simply voting with one's feet and generalizing production based on consistently rotating work roles within self-composing work groups that use mass-collectivized means of mass production:


Rotation system of work roles

http://i51.tinypic.com/104qeqt.jpg

[Turinbaar]

I used to work in a "member-owned" co-operative called REI where the administrative council was made up of major stockholders and representatives elected from and by the workers (who were by definition stockowners). The atmosphere was much nicer than a corporation, and there was a sense of equality while working even though there were figures of authority. Workers could propose and vote for wage increases, and wage differences between manager and newcomer were negligible and distinguished more by how long they had worked there, rather than what rank they held.

This being said, the essential problem of alienation remains unresolved. As a worker, one is an object (and compelled to be cretinous one too), and if human error results in a threat to company profit margins, then one is a defective object in need of replacement. Class solidarity between the workers and their representatives has not produced serious measures to eliminate this problem. The achievement of co-operative management, or even worker's control, still bears with it the stamp of its lowly origin in private property, and will bear its contradictions to the extend that it does.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just for the record, I'll point out that historically "workers management of industry" (AKA self-management) has been combined with 3 different proposals for how the collective management by workers could be made accountable to the larger society:

1. market socialists propose this is to be via market relations (as with David Schweickart, Yugoslav "self-managment")

2. grassroots central planning (via proposals being filtered up from the assemblies in the workplaces to some larger delegate body, as in De Leon's National Industrial Congress, or the proposals for a national congress of factory organizations proposed in fall 1917 by Russian anarcho-syndicalists)

3. some form of negotiated coordination between people as consumers and as producers. earliest version of this was guild socialism. Albert & Hahnel's participatory planning. and Pat Devine's version which leaves more of a role for the state, especially for broader scope infrastructure planning, and also leaves some role for markets (tho he wants to distinguish this from "market forces", yet I find his distinction opaque).

More of Pat Devine's papers need to be available on the Internet. :(

The Cockshott-Cottrell solution is a fourth option: computerized planning, with market relations only coming in for clearing prices (inventory below a safety stock level or above an inventory cap level).

[syndicat]

The Cockshott-Cottrell solution is a fourth option: computerized planning, with market relations only coming in for clearing prices (inventory below a safety stock level or above an inventory cap level).

Referring to the use of computers is handwaving. it tells us nothing. and the issue in this case is the combination of workers self-management with social accountability. markets do not do a good job of achieving that. they allow persistent cost-shifting, and allow individuals with more skill, education, marketing savvy etc to obtain higher salaries and more privileged positions.

[MarxSchmarx]

Some of these models of worker co-management (or on the ground worker self-supervision) were widely implemented in Japan. Part of "Japan Works" by John Price (Cornell Univ. Press 1997) is available on googl books, and outlines how this form of "worker co-management" evolved out of post-war Japanese industrial relations.

Also, there is this hour long radio story about how this approach worked well, at least initially, in an American factory but the culture was so different from GM's prevailing approach that it eventually fell by the wayside:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do you have the link to the Google Books material? Almost all the time I don't need all the material. I can grab the key narratives for quoting and reference.

[RED DAVE]

Some of these models of worker co-management (or on the ground worker self-supervision) were widely implemented in Japan. Part of "Japan Works" by John Price (Cornell Univ. Press 1997) is available on googl books, and outlines how this form of "worker co-management" evolved out of post-war Japanese industrial relations.

Also, there is this hour long radio story about how this approach worked well, at least initially, in an American factory but the culture was so different from GM's prevailing approach that it eventually fell by the wayside:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummiWhat does any of this have to do with socialism?

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

[Dual power] is unstable and must either go forward towards workers power or backwards to ... .





...to...

...yes, to centripetalism -- we know. I, for the record, am a 'left centrifugalist'.


= D


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/

[RED DAVE]

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/Is this supposed to be some kind of a political statement?

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Is this supposed to be some kind of a political statement?


No, it's meant to be an diagrammatic representation of certain objective parameters. The subheading on it reads:

"A schematic system for illustrating the interplay of theory and practice"

[RED DAVE]

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/
Is this supposed to be some kind of a political statement?
No, it's meant to be an diagrammatic representation of certain objective parameters. The subheading on it reads:

"A schematic system for illustrating the interplay of theory and practice"It's bizarre and incomprehensible. What does it have to do with Marxism?

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

It's bizarre and incomprehensible. What does it have to do with Marxism?


Well, matters of your own personal taste and abilities aside, the idea is to show that the nation-state exerts a centripetal-like force on society due to its middleman role between labor and capital. Likewise, the working class and ownership class each tend to consolidate to their peripheries -- like centrifugal force -- due to their counterposed, irreconcilable material interests over the societal surplus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces

[RED DAVE]

It's bizarre and incomprehensible. What does it have to do with Marxism?
Well, matters of your own personal taste and abilities aside, the idea is to show that the nation-state exerts a centripetal-like force on society due to its middleman role between labor and capital.Uhh, Comrade, Marxist theory does not teach that a nation-state is "middleman role between labor and capital." Marxism teaches that the state is "the executive committee of the ruling class." The so-called "middleman role" is an illusion that the capitalists foist on the workers in order to conceal the true role of the state.


Likewise, the working class and ownership class each tend to consolidate to their peripheries -- like centrifugal force -- due to their counterposed, irreconcilable material interests over the societal surplus.Gobbledy-gook. Again I ask, what does this have to do with Marxism?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ripetal_forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces) I like physics too, but this has nothing to do with Marxism either.

RED DAVE

[ckaihatsu]

Uhh, Comrade, Marxist theory does not teach that a nation-state is "middleman role between labor and capital." Marxism teaches that the state is "the executive committee of the ruling class." The so-called "middleman role" is an illusion that the capitalists foist on the workers in order to conceal the true role of the state.


Okay, fair enough -- point taken....

*But* -- doesn't the nation-state play a *de facto* "middleman" role as a result of its assigned function as the 'executive committee of the ruling class' -- ? Meaning that, in fending off labor struggles from below it must maneuver and spin, sometimes even being forced to give up concessions in periods of militant struggles.





I like physics too, but this has nothing to do with Marxism either.




Gobbledy-gook. Again I ask, what does this have to do with Marxism?


*Not* gobbledy-gook. The use of objective physical forces in the visual metaphor is proper, appropriate, valid, and illustrative.

Consider that during the capitalist expansionist period in the 19th century, and earlier centuries, the boom-bust cycle was entirely regular and predictably cyclical. In the 20th century, during periods of upswings -- as during the war-production '40s -- the nation-state likewise enjoyed a higher-level, less-unstable existence. This sovereign economic health -- as through warfare -- equates to a spinning center that is slower, more stable, and with a larger "sweet spot" of lessened circular motion in the middle.

Appropriately enough this condition also means that there's less *centrifugal* force flinging objective, counterposed *class* interests to either "outer region" -- in periods when the economy is not fluctuating as much the nation-state's "lessened motion" allows forces from both labor and capital to "cross the divide" and confront each other as the nation-state is less able to provide a spinning, destabilizing "centripetal" force.

So, to sum up, the "spinning disc" is illustrative of the extent of nation-state political activity -- assertion of sovereignty -- as during periods of economic fluctuation, either on the way up or on the way down. When the ruling class is too preoccupied with its own well-off being or crisis-ridden state of existence it fails to pay enough attention to and provide adequate "physical" destabilizing "spinning-disc force" to its 'executive committee of the ruling class', the nation-state. This equates to a lessening of official domestic and imperialist / adventurist political repression, allowing revolutionary and fascist forces a newfound political ground on which to clash, as is their wont.

[Kiev Communard]

The original thread sorta got off topic, and I was clearly addressing more economic matters than politics or the state.

I've outlined my reservation with "workers control," and I'm working on reservations with "workers self-management," "industrial democracy," and of course "co-determination."

So what about stakeholder co-management? Right now the corporations are legally obligated to look out for shareholder interests first (a problem with co-determination going too far), but this would have to change. Stakeholder co-management also doesn't imply autonomous or semi-autonomous units in a market economy like "workers self-management" does, courtesy of Yugoslavia under Tito.



Do you mean, like in John Roemer model?




I shall next set out in summary form the model that Roemer has presented,pursuing the second route, in an article and then in a book entitled [I]A Future for Socialism. Enterprises would be nationalised. ‘Clamshells’ would be distributed in equal quantities to all citizens, who would convert them into shares in the enterprises of their choice and would receive the dividends until their death, when they would revert to the state.

However, in order to prevent the least well-off among them selling their shares to other people, who would thereby become large property-owners – this is what happened in the ex-USSR and the other Eastern countries – individuals could only exchange their shares (at the price of the clamshells) for different shares, not for money.This would impel them to keep an eye on the yield of their shares, if not doing it themselves, then at least entrusting the task to managers, even by changing managers.

Since shares would not be a way of raising capital,financing would derive from credit. It would be provided by public banks that could not transform themselves into merchant banks – that is to say, acquire an interest in the capital of non-financial or financial institutions. Institutional arrangements would make the public banks independent of the state, but their profits would largely flow to the Treasury. The banks would oversee the enterprises, the movement of the clamshells providing them with information about the quality of their management. As for the management of the enterprises, it would be appointed by their boards of directors, which would include representatives of fund managers, of enterprises supplying credit, and of employees.This would ensure good incentives.

Moreover, capitalist enterprises would be authorised, in order to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. However, when they reached a certain size, they would be nationalised and their shares distributed to the public. Finally, the plan would act on investment by indirect means – mainly by manipulating interest rates.

There is no doubt that these models, supposing they were viable and met with the popular support required for their implementation, would differ appreciably from contemporary capitalism. But can we speak of socialism?Are we not instead dealing with a state capitalism or a ‘popular’ capitalism?
Many arguments lead in this direction.

Andreani himself is in favour of "self-management socialism" similar to Schweickart's "Economic Democracy", but he still points out that the implementation of "stakeholders' socialism" would lead to the emerging inequalities and the rise of managerial strata overseeing the "clamshells" movements as de-facto new ruling class. So I don't think such a model would be viable - or desirable.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not at all (hold on for a moment).

[ckaihatsu]

financing would derive from credit.




It would be provided by public banks




[T]he public banks [would be] independent of the state, but their profits would largely flow to the Treasury.





Finally, the plan would act on investment by indirect means – mainly by manipulating interest rates.


This isn't even "market socialism" -- at most it's a reformist measure aimed at a more progressive tax rate on capital gains.

As soon as the money supply *itself* is financialized -- as with the use of interest rates -- then it's being abstracted out of any kind of conscious, determining *political* control. At most the Treasury would make adjustments to the *main* interest rate, and, with that, we're basically back to the present-day autonomous Fed and its throttle-like control over the overall velocity of the economy.

The problem with market socialism across-the-board is that it unavoidably re-introduces the dynamic of counterposed economic factions of capital. By releasing market forces you're setting up a side of capital ownership that has interests in a *looser* money supply (equity), against the *other* side of capital ownership that has interests in a *tighter* money supply (rentier).

[Kiev Communard]

This isn't even "market socialism" -- at most it's a reformist measure aimed at a more progressive tax rate on capital gains.

Well, actually it's more complicated, as Roemer pre-supposes the complete nationalization of capitalist property - the thing your typical reformists would regard as "extremist", - but then wants it to be operated in accordance with profit principle by worker-shareholders or their representatives (actually managers). Of course, he still does not address the issue of those "representatives" turning themselves into the reborn capitalist class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While we're veering off topic here (hopefully momentarily), a key failure of all market socialist theorists to date is the failure to address the labour market. Sure, they tackle the capital market and the consumer products market (however we may disagree with them), but the labour market is ignored. I won't re-iterate the detailed virtues of Hyman Minsky's public-employer-of-last-resort for zero structural and cyclical unemployment, but that's what I mean by addressing the labour market.

EDIT: Schweickart does mention Minsky, but probably only briefly.

[RED DAVE]

Just a quicky.


Uhh, Comrade, Marxist theory does not teach that a nation-state is "middleman role between labor and capital." Marxism teaches that the state is "the executive committee of the ruling class." The so-called "middleman role" is an illusion that the capitalists foist on the workers in order to conceal the true role of the state.
Okay, fair enough -- point taken....

*But* -- doesn't the nation-state play a *de facto* "middleman" role as a result of its assigned function as the 'executive committee of the ruling class' -- ? Meaning that, in fending off labor struggles from below it must maneuver and spin, sometimes even being forced to give up concessions in periods of militant struggles.No. A "middleman" stands between two parties to a transaction, favoring neither. The state is an instrument of the ruling class. Its role is not to facilitate relations between classes but to enforce, by any means necessary, the power of the ruling class.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Anarchists usually say the same thing about the state. But i think it's a bit more complex. the state also requires some semblance of legitimacy to rule, to ensure social peace. To that end they may respond to mass protest and social strife with concessions. This was the origin of the welfare state and the "social wage." They are doing this to maintain the viability and acceptance for the state. The state is not simply reducible to the ruling class or a direct instrument of their rule. On the other hand, the state is definitely a class institution, that is, an institution of class domination.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the Third World, this term can have "populist" instead of "worker" as a prefix to "stakeholder."

[Jose Gracchus]

Again, most corporate stakeholders are not shareholders, and I'm not advocating any form of distributism.

"Control" is a slithery word. It's nowhere near the scope of what a typical management does. Even within the limited sphere of "control," there are inconsistencies.

Why do you think your neologisms are somehow more robust to definitional and rhetorical degeneration than previous terms? I don't see why. Novel terminology can clarify, but it can also serve obscurantist functions (like much of the cultural detritus of the bureaucratic and managerial and other privileged classes; much of 'social science' is more about mystification as it is about definitional precision).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I'm not much of a philosopher, and I think I know my limits on neologisms. For example, I'm not going anywhere the post-modernist bile written in the Empire trilogy. On the other hand things aren't "deleted" from the backburner of my head as easily and quickly as in other heads, so I just Google them for a refresher and apply things accordingly. :blushing:

[Son of a Strummer]

One of the sources of confusion, as far as I can see, is that, to begin with, DNZ did not provide a full enough description of what he means by stakeholder "co-management" (at least in this particular thread, is there an adequate description elsewhere?).

It is not to be confused with shareholding based on private ownership of stock.

Stakeholder co-management as far as it concerns pre-figurative theory refers to a principle informing the rights of decision-making over the use to be made of the means of production and collective consumption according to which all those principally affected by their use should have a say in their management. It is very much-related to principles of self-government and self-management, and is probably most familiar in the literature on ecological economics.

It is not an all-encompassing principle, and in order to achieve our goals of social justice it needs to be embedded in or married with other frameworks such as principles of broad social ownership and control through democratic planning, and to worker's self-management.

So by way of example - on the co-management board of a shoe production unit there would be representation of the workers (most likely worker's council and union representatives), representatives of consumer groups, representatives of the neighborhood assembly in which the plant is located, representatives from related industrial councils (ie: principal supply industries,and distribution outlets) and perhaps representatives from concerned ecological and citizen's groups if they have demonstrated that the shoe production has a principle impact upon their interests, etc. All these parties, if we follow this example, would constitute the stakeholders.

It is one way that is proposed of addressing externalities, by getting affected groups to deliberate and plan together about the interdependent consequences of production and consumption in a way that involves antecedent planning including diagnosis and response to the outcomes of previous production cycles.

I think it has limits if it is not embedded in a broader framework of social ownership and just remuneration and is instead based upon a framework of competing cooperatives.

It has the virtue of being a principle that promotes inclusive forms of democracy; on the other hand, it has the possible demerit of being too vague because if taken too far it can be too intrusive of the autonomy,self-activity and creativity of worker's and consumer's councils. Rather than being opposed to worker's self-management it needs to be balanced with it. Co-management should concern things such as changes in plant capacity, whether to invest more, downsize, change inputs, change the final products,etc. Whereas the use of existing plant capacity, conditions, organization, and relations on the shop floor, etc. should be left to the self-managing workers.

That's how I understand it. I am not sure I completely agree with it, but I think it is a serious idea, well worth consideration. And of course there have been legitimate concerns, especially regarding worker's and consumer's autonomy, and time efficiency involved in deliberations, expressed by equally serious and committed thinkers in the field.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the sources of confusion, as far as I can see, is that, to begin with, DNZ did not provide a full enough description of what he means by stakeholder "co-management" (at least in this particular thread, is there an adequate description elsewhere?).

Elsewhere? Yes, but more discrete too.


It is not to be confused with shareholding based on private ownership of stock.

Yeah, some of the earlier posters were confused about this.


Stakeholder co-management as far as it concerns pre-figurative theory refers to a principle informing the rights of decision-making over the use to be made of the means of production and collective consumption according to which all those principally affected by their use should have a say in their management. It is very much-related to principles of self-government and self-management, and is probably most familiar in the literature on ecological economics.

Ecological economics already has "stakeholder [co-]management" as a term?


So by way of example - on the co-management board of a shoe production unit there would be representation of the workers (most likely union representatives), representatives of consumer groups, representatives of the neighborhood assembly in which the plant is located, representatives from related industrial councils (ie: principal supply industries,and distribution outlets) and perhaps representatives from concerned ecological or citizen's groups if they have demonstrated that the shoe production has a principle impact upon their interests, etc. All these parties, if we follow this example, would constitute the stakeholders.

Good example! :thumbup1:


I think it has limits if it is not embedded in a broader framework of social ownership and just remuneration and is instead based upon a framework of competing cooperatives.

Well, programmatically speaking I already said I coined this specifically to fall short of systemic collective worker management (SCWM). It is, however, not limited to that framework of competing cooperatives. Stakeholder co-management before SCWM can be applied to the industry level.


It has the virtue of being a principle that promotes inclusive forms of democracy; on the other hand, it has the possible demerit of being too vague because if taken too far it can too be too intrusive of the autonomy,self-activity and creativity of worker's and consumer's councils. Rather than being opposed to worker's self-management it needs to be balanced with it. Co-management should concern things such as changes in plant capacity, whether to invest more, downsize, change inputs, change the final products, etc. Whereas the use of existing plant capacity, conditions, organization, and relations on the shop floor, etc. should be left to the self-managing workers.

I'll have to keep those nuances in mind.


That's how I understand it. I am not sure I completely agree with it, but I think it is a serious idea, well worth consideration. And of course there have been legitimate concerns, especially regarding worker's and consumer's autonomy, and time efficiency involved in deliberations, expressed by equally serious and committed thinkers in the field.

Your insight and input are greatly appreciated!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I see what this idea of "stake holders" is ... you're trying to offer a model of management whereby the producers of the means of production, the workers, and the consumers can participate in management without alienation.

It is a noble effort. Perhaps Red Dave finds it incomplete, or too heavily based on the bourgeoise model of incorporating. However, I like the idea. It is something I wonder about myself. What does "worker's management" mean? There isn't an obvious answer, and there's no reason why the notion of "Stakeholder" couldnt be seen as either a point of departure, or as a model which we can at least borrow from. Note, that bourgeoise economics have the same problem. What's the best way for property owners to manage collective capital (ie, a corporation traded on the stock market, with a board and shareholder-elected representatives)? Bourgeoise economists and business writers seem to constantly be editorializing on this.

A question-workers need to work as well as manage, does it contradict the notion of worker's management to have elected management officials who can be recalled from office? Or should all "representative models" of democracy be put in the dustbin of history?

And who is a worker? Am I a stakeholder, or a worker manager, from the moment I start working there, or is there some kind of priority given to experience? What about people in related fields?

[ckaihatsu]

I see what this idea of "stake holders" is ... you're trying to offer a model of management whereby the producers of the means of production, the workers, and the consumers can participate in management without alienation.




What does "worker's management" mean? There isn't an obvious answer,


Actually, there *is* an obvious answer -- all of those who directly determine the output from a workplace, as a result of their own efforts, that they receive a wage for, are the workers.

If these workers who are conventionally dependent on receiving a wage from capitalist management were to be in a position to collectively make all of the decisions that determine the operations of the business entity, then they would be in a position of workers' management.





and there's no reason why the notion of "Stakeholder" couldnt be seen as either a point of departure, or as a model which we can at least borrow from. Note, that bourgeoise economics have the same problem. What's the best way for property owners to manage collective capital (ie, a corporation traded on the stock market, with a board and shareholder-elected representatives)?


There *isn't* a clear parallel between the situation of a workers' management (co-administration) in relation to all conceivable "stakeholders" and that of the corporate boardroom in relation to stockholders.

The reason is because the board of directors exists *only* to maximize share value (equity) and dividends to stockholders -- they are replaceable if they do not fulfill this function.

On the other hand, a workers' co-administration would have to be concerned with *their own* collective political position in relation to their own *labor* -- this is objectively a distinctly different situation.

The gray area here is that in such a position of collective direction over the operations of a productive entity, a workers' co-administration would necessarily have to take other parties, and, to varying degrees, their respective situations, into account as they run operations in an ongoing way -- this is the source of the "stakeholders" definition.

But external parties like suppliers, the outlying community, regular customers, consumers, and the general public, are *not* the same (in function) as the workers themselves. This is where an objective *prioritization* of importance can be discerned, because without the basis of production -- labor itself -- all other parties would be inconsequential anyway -- thus those "stakeholders" are *secondary* in importance to the workers and their own collective co-administration.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Actually, there *is* an obvious answer -- all of those who directly determine the output from a workplace, as a result of their own efforts, that they receive a wage for, are the workers.

If these workers who are conventionally dependent on receiving a wage from capitalist management were to be in a position to collectively make all of the decisions that determine the operations of the business entity, then they would be in a position of workers' management.


Your definition of worker presupposes wage labour. And it also levels all types of labour. Should the part-time guy who doesn't really need the job anyways and gives only a few hours here and there get the exact same authority as the guy who works there 50 hours a week and relies on it for his well being? Maybe he should, but it's a question at least worth asking.



There *isn't* a clear parallel between the situation of a workers' management (co-administration) in relation to all conceivable "stakeholders" and that of the corporate boardroom in relation to stockholders.

The reason is because the board of directors exists *only* to maximize share value (equity) and dividends to stockholders -- they are replaceable if they do not fulfill this function.

On the other hand, a workers' co-administration would have to be concerned with *their own* collective political position in relation to their own *labor* -- this is objectively a distinctly different situation.

The gray area here is that in such a position of collective direction over the operations of a productive entity, a workers' co-administration would necessarily have to take other parties, and, to varying degrees, their respective situations, into account as they run operations in an ongoing way -- this is the source of the "stakeholders" definition.

The parallel I drew was not between the basis of the authority or the objectives worked towards. Where I was drawing parallels was that both, as institutions, need structures to determine how authority and decision making are distributed. These structures need to be both fair and effective for the objectives in question, be it surplus value or social benefit. And so the principles outlining these structures need to be elaborated on. The parallel is that it is hard to go from the ideals of the structure-stemming either from authority in property holders and authority in workers-could potentially structure itself in a diverse number of ways.



But external parties like suppliers, the outlying community, regular customers, consumers, and the general public, are *not* the same (in function) as the workers themselves. This is where an objective *prioritization* of importance can be discerned, because without the basis of production -- labor itself -- all other parties would be inconsequential anyway -- thus those "stakeholders" are *secondary* in importance to the workers and their own collective co-administration.

This may be the case. But it still leaves it open precisely how authority is distributed between the workers and the people who rely on the productivity of those workers.

[ckaihatsu]

Your definition of worker presupposes wage labour. And it also levels all types of labour. Should the part-time guy who doesn't really need the job anyways and gives only a few hours here and there get the exact same authority as the guy who works there 50 hours a week and relies on it for his well being? Maybe he should, but it's a question at least worth asking.




This may be the case. But it still leaves it open precisely how authority is distributed between the workers and the people who rely on the productivity of those workers.


These are both good points -- any ideas here yourself?

With the workers in the driver's seat all other 'stakeholders' would have to go through the authority of workers' power -- that's unavoidable due to the material fact that labor is the source of production.

For the former question I'd say go with weighted voting, both for agenda-setting and for final voting on any internal issue. The following chart can be a guide to this process:


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35hop84dg/

[Rowan Duffy]

Referring to the use of computers is handwaving. it tells us nothing. and the issue in this case is the combination of workers self-management with social accountability. markets do not do a good job of achieving that. they allow persistent cost-shifting, and allow individuals with more skill, education, marketing savvy etc to obtain higher salaries and more privileged positions.

Cottrell and Cockshott are not handwaving, whatever you might think about their contributions. The use of computers for their proposal is a necessary condition as the computations are in excess of what could be performed by hand. They, however, do not at all see the computers as sufficient conditions but instead develop a plausible planning system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Upon reading further into Soviet history in regards to the lineage from Rabkrin and the party equivalents (Central Control and also the disciplinary organ) to the Ministry of State Control and the party equivalents to the joint Party-State Control Committee to the People's Control Commission and the the party equivalents, I think the less nebulous word inspection is more accurate to describe their functions.