Parallel economies, or Constantinism

[Dimentio]

Constantine was a Roman Emperor who greatly benefitted Christianity by officially legalising it while in reality undermining the old religions, giving Christianity a favoured treatment. If he had simply de-legalised all old religions and made Christianity the only allowed religion, he would probably have been murdered quite quickly or at least met much more opposition.

Therefore, I wonder if not some sort of combination between a NEP and a more socialised economy could exist during the transitionary phase, where both systems of production are officially treated equal but where in reality the latter alternative is heavilyu favoured?

[Die Neue Zeit]

A number of us here who advocate labour credits replacing money-capital are OK with some form of market socialism (like the Yugoslav model or Schweickart's "economic democracy") as the first step. Paul Cockshott, for example, argues that the Yugoslav model is a better starting point than elements of the Soviet model.

But like I said in another thread, all hardcore proponents of market socialism to date may have tackled the capital market and the consumer products market (however we may disagree with them), but have utterly failed to tackle the labour market like Hyman Minsky did (public employer of last resort for consumer services - ends structural and cyclical unemployment).

EDIT: It appears Schweickart did support an ELR program, after all.

[sanpal]

Constantine was a Roman Emperor who greatly benefitted Christianity by officially legalising it while in reality undermining the old religions, giving Christianity a favoured treatment. If he had simply de-legalised all old religions and made Christianity the only allowed religion, he would probably have been murdered quite quickly or at least met much more opposition.

Therefore, I wonder if not some sort of combination between a NEP and a more socialised economy could exist during the transitionary phase, where both systems of production are officially treated equal but where in reality the latter alternative is heavilyu favoured?

Oh, finally..
as far as I'm in revleft I talked about of two- or three-sectors economy during transitional period i.e. about of two parallel going economies: market (state-capitalist and traditional capitalist) sector and non-market (communist) sector. A year ago I put a diagramme "Transition from bourgeois organized capitalism via proletarian state capitalism to communist society " in my album

http://i55.tinypic.com/20u5zwh.jpg

Also I talked on this theme (parallel economies) in the thread "Placing and Identifying tendencies" where I described the social-economic structure of the transitional period.

[sanpal]

I think "constantinism" is a very good term and a very correct direction of thought and it finally would help to take out left movement from bog of crisis.
The mistake of (early) Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Khrustchov, etc. etc. etc. till many of modern left theorists - all of them see the point to transition from capitalism to socialism/communism by the whole (100%) society. But it is possible only through GULAG or otherwise this condition could be waited infinitely. The only decision - parallel economies - a peaceful democratic way of transformation after the Proletarian Revolution.

[Hit The North]

The mistake of (early) Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Khrustchov, etc. etc. etc. till many of modern left theorists - all of them see the point to transition from capitalism to socialism/communism by the whole (100%) society. But it is possible only through GULAG or otherwise this condition could be waited infinitely. The only decision - parallel economies - a peaceful democratic way of transformation after the Proletarian Revolution.

Revolutions rarely wind up coming to an equitable deal between class enemies. On what basis would normal bourgeois capitalism be allowed to persist post revolution, except as a measure of the failure of the revolution to install the working class as the ruling class and push through the necessary abolition of private property?

If the working class has come to the conclusion that it is bourgeois production relations which need overthrowing, why would they then agree to allow it a continued existence? At what point in the revolution do your prevent the further re-appropriation of the means of production, in order to allow a remnant of bourgeois property to survive? Or is the deal that the new workers power is somehow compelled to restore already collectivised property back to private hands?

[Dimentio]

Revolutions rarely wind up coming to an equitable deal between class enemies. On what basis would normal bourgeois capitalism be allowed to persist post revolution, except as a measure of the failure of the revolution to install the working class as the ruling class and push through the necessary abolition of private property?

If the working class has come to the conclusion that it is bourgeois production relations which need overthrowing, why would they then agree to allow it a continued existence? At what point in the revolution do your prevent the further re-appropriation of the means of production, in order to allow a remnant of bourgeois property to survive? Or is the deal that the new workers power is somehow compelled to restore already collectivised property back to private hands?

With all due respect, the working class in Russia in 1917 did not support the Bolsheviks because they promised socialism, but because they promised to end the war.

Generally, workers don't want a new kind of society. They want the old society, but without the bad stuff. I for example doubt medieval burghers dreamt about bourgeois republics. Instead, they wanted their interests being looked after within the existent order.

[Hit The North]

With all due respect, the working class in Russia in 1917 did not support the Bolsheviks because they promised socialism, but because they promised to end the war.

Generally, workers don't want a new kind of society. They want the old society, but without the bad stuff. I for example doubt medieval burghers dreamt about bourgeois republics. Instead, they wanted their interests being looked after within the existent order.

Then, with all due respect to you, you must believe that revolutions are imposed on the masses by elites. I'm a Marxist, so I don't believe this. I stand for revolution from below.

EDIT: Also, you ignore that the Russian working class had already organised itself into Soviets, before it supported the Bolsheviks.

[Dimentio]

Revolutions generally happen from below. But seldom the people from below are deciding how the new society is looking like (the most genuine example of people's will in a revolution is paradoxically the Iranian Revolution where a referendum led to the establishment of an Islamic Republic). To a note, the Bolsheviks got about 25% in the 1918 elections and became smaller than the Socialist Revolutionaries.

People are rational and generally don't long for something which they have never experienced.

[Demogorgon]

A number of us here who advocate labour credits replacing money-capital are OK with some form of market socialism (like the Yugoslav model or Schweickart's "economic democracy") as the first step. Paul Cockshott, for example, argues that the Yugoslav model is a better starting point than elements of the Soviet model.

But like I said in another thread, all hardcore proponents of market socialism to date may have tackled the capital market and the consumer products market (however we may disagree with them), but have utterly failed to tackle the labour market like Hyman Minsky did (public employer of last resort for consumer services - ends structural and cyclical unemployment).
Actually Schweickart does address the labour problem and advocates the employer of last resort system. He doesn't go heavily into it, but in at least one of his books, I forget which unfortunately.

Anyway as you probably remember I like Schweickart's work, though I think he more lays foundations than gives a complete programme. Though he alludes to it with his capital assets tax, he does not make enough of the abolition of private property. I think a model building on his proposals should make it very clear that the "co-ops" he refers to are not capitalist co-ops but are rather autonomous units using publicly owned resources and making due contribution to common funds for it.

Anyway as for such a "Constantine" proposal as a first step, I like it, it strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that might work as a first step away from capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

With all due respect, the working class in Russia in 1917 did not support the Bolsheviks because they promised socialism, but because they promised to end the war.

Generally, workers don't want a new kind of society. They want the old society, but without the bad stuff. I for example doubt medieval burghers dreamt about bourgeois republics. Instead, they wanted their interests being looked after within the existent order.
I don't think that is entirely accurate, people as a rule do not look for societies only existing in the abstract, rather they look at existing society and see how they want to change it, Marx recognised this when he referred to new institutions forming in the womb of the old system. The burghers were neither planning a new model based in their heads, nor were they just wanting minor reforms to the existing system, what they wanted was the replacement of institutions acting against them with institutions acting for them. This of course lead naturally to a capitalist system.

I think it is important to remember that feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc are not abstract metaphysical entities or indeed things society switches between, disregarding everything of the old and creating entirely new systems, rather they are names we give to different stages of society's evolution, it morphs into new forms with its institutions changing not through abstract planning of something entirely new but through people identifying particular problems and seeking to change them with other institutions being forced to adapt too to meet the new circumstances.

That is why your suggestion is such a good one, though based on what you say above, I'm not sure you realise just how good it is!

[Dimentio]

That is why your suggestion is such a good one, though based on what you say above, I'm not sure you realise just how good it is!

Actually, the suggestion I put forward is really the proposal of Dr Andrew Wallace and EOS. And yes, it would give people something to struggle for.

[Hit The North]

Revolutions generally happen from below. But seldom the people from below are deciding how the new society is looking like (the most genuine example of people's will in a revolution is paradoxically the Iranian Revolution where a referendum led to the establishment of an Islamic Republic). To a note, the Bolsheviks got about 25% in the 1918 elections and became smaller than the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Naturally, revolutions can go in different directions depending on many variables such as the constellation of ideological and material factors; this is why we don't sit on our backsides waiting for the glorious day but, if we are serious, we agitate, educate and we organise.



People are rational and generally don't long for something which they have never experienced.

You're making some pretty bold and transcendent psychological claims in order to support your hypothesis. But are you claiming that those who do long for something which they have not experienced (neither you not I have lived in a communist society), are being irrational?

[Hit The North]

Anyway as for such a "Constantine" proposal as a first step, I like it, it strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that might work as a first step away from capitalism.

Then I have to express my surprise that you are abandoning a revolutionary program for a transitional program.

[Demogorgon]

Then I have to express my surprise that you are abandoning a revolutionary program for a transitional program.
Actually I think that is an artificial divide there. I have always believed that revolutions take a long time, that is to say people might overthrow the Government or whatever but they then have to make a new society, that takes time and continued struggle. It's not just one step and its done after all, in reality something as big as the abolition of capitalism is a "multi-revolution" process. It took more than one revolution in most places to be rid of feudalism after all.

[Dimentio]

You're making some pretty bold and transcendent psychological claims in order to support your hypothesis. But are you claiming that those who do long for something which they have not experienced (neither you not I have lived in a communist society), are being irrational?

To some extent, yes.

Most of us are evidently quite young. People who already have an employment and families are less likely to want to overthrow the system, since they already have so much to lose.

The thing is - irrational people are bringing society forward. I mean, imagine what irrationality there must have been needed for the first human being who made fire? Or the wheel?

[Hit The North]

Actually I think that is an artificial divide there. I have always believed that revolutions take a long time, that is to say people might overthrow the Government or whatever but they then have to make a new society, that takes time and continued struggle. It's not just one step and its done after all, in reality something as big as the abolition of capitalism is a "multi-revolution" process. It took more than one revolution in most places to be rid of feudalism after all.

I'm not arguing for 'one big fire' either. However, we need to be clear about what constitutes a revolution and, in particular, a workers socialist revolution. Perhaps capitalism, based as it is on private property, can afford a prolonged, evolutionary period; but is this true of a socialist revolution which necessitates a complete rupture with existing property forms?

Also, even if there is a period of transition either side of the revolutionary rupture, these transitional periods are not themselves immune from class struggle. The notion of parallel economic systems co-existing in a rational symbiosis, even one in which one system is doomed to decay (and how will this be enforced?), seems to suggest a situation where the class struggle has been negated.

This, in itself, is a completely impractical idea. What will constitute the social power which is able to negate the class struggle where private property still exists? Post revolution, will the workers who are subject to the alienation and exploitation which is endemic to the bourgeois mode of accumulation, be instructed not to struggle against their bosses? Will we have a realm of freedom for some workers and a realm of wage-slavery for others? If not, and the workers government which is attempting to retain normal bourgeois capitalism, also decides to protect the workers within these enterprises from exploitation, what would be the point for the capitalist?

Isn't the whole notion of parallel economies as a transitional mechanism towards communism, just another form of utopian socialism?

[Dimentio]

No one has claimed it won't be messy. The transition from Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire was a very messy process.

[Hit The North]

No one has claimed it won't be messy. The transition from Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire was a very messy process.

With all due respect, I think the main problem is that the concept is 'incoherent', rather than the outcome would be 'messy'.

Also, by what measure do you draw parallels with the transition from paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire and the revolutionary replacement of capitalism with socialism? It gives you the fancy title of Constantinism, but little else, given how dissimilar the two processes are.

[Demogorgon]

I'm not arguing for 'one big fire' either. However, we need to be clear about what constitutes a revolution and, in particular, a workers socialist revolution. Perhaps capitalism, based as it is on private property, can afford a prolonged, evolutionary period; but is this true of a socialist revolution which necessitates a complete rupture with existing property forms?

Also, even if there is a period of transition either side of the revolutionary rupture, these transitional periods are not themselves immune from class struggle. The notion of parallel economic systems co-existing in a rational symbiosis, even one in which one system is doomed to decay (and how will this be enforced?), seems to suggest a situation where the class struggle has been negated.

This, in itself, is a completely impractical idea. What will constitute the social power which is able to negate the class struggle where private property still exists? Post revolution, will the workers who are subject to the alienation and exploitation which is endemic to the bourgeois mode of accumulation, be instructed not to struggle against their bosses? Will we have a realm of freedom for some workers and a realm of wage-slavery for others? If not, and the workers government which is attempting to retain normal bourgeois capitalism, also decides to protect the workers within these enterprises from exploitation, what would be the point for the capitalist?

Isn't the whole notion of parallel economies as a transitional mechanism towards communism, just another form of utopian socialism?
I don't think it is utopian at all, rather as I see it (I can't speak for Dimentio obviously) it is a policy programme to be pursued if and when the working class get control of state power. That is to say a combination of policies suppressing capitalist power while planting the seeds of new economic institutions. It's not meant as a model to aspire to, at least not as I see it, but rather as a step on the path forward. Moreover, and herein lies its real advantage, it provides a good beginning programme to talk about and allows us to advocate something that looks achievable from today's perspective. In my experience people are much less interested in very long term goals and more interested in what we can propose to do shortly.

[Dimentio]

That it is a generally better system of transition, because it creates more ambiguity and allows the working class the time they need to adapt themselves. It also could mean that we could utilise the Meidner push and pull methodology (use heavy taxation just to put such burden on capitalists shoulders that it would break their financial spine and force them to lay off their workers, who then are pulled into the alternative economy).

[Hit The North]

I don't think it is utopian at all, rather as I see it (I can't speak for Dimentio obviously) it is a policy programme to be pursued if and when the working class get control of state power. That is to say a combination of policies suppressing capitalist power while planting the seeds of new economic institutions. It's not meant as a model to aspire to, at least not as I see it, but rather as a step on the path forward. Moreover, and herein lies its real advantage, it provides a good beginning programme to talk about and allows us to advocate something that looks achievable from today's perspective. In my experience people are much less interested in very long term goals and more interested in what we can propose to do shortly.

Fine. But maybe you could address some of my questions?

[Hit The North]

That it is a generally better system of transition, because it creates more ambiguity and allows the working class the time they need to adapt themselves. It also could mean that we could utilise the Meidner push and pull methodology (use heavy taxation just to put such burden on capitalists shoulders that it would break their financial spine and force them to lay off their workers, who then are pulled into the alternative economy).

I'm unclear. Is this meant to be implemented pre or post revolution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

But it is possible only through GULAG or otherwise this condition could be waited infinitely. The only decision - parallel economies - a peaceful democratic way of transformation after the Proletarian Revolution.


Revolutions rarely wind up coming to an equitable deal between class enemies. On what basis would normal bourgeois capitalism be allowed to persist post revolution, except as a measure of the failure of the revolution to install the working class as the ruling class and push through the necessary abolition of private property?

Comrade Sanpal didn't say the bourgeoisie would continue to exist as a class post-revolution. Any private ownership would strictly be petit-bourgeois.

In the Third World, it's a Two-Stage, Caesarian process where the "national" elements of the petit-bourgeoisie run the show. In the more developed countries, it's the proles running the show.


Actually Schweickart does address the labour problem and advocates the employer of last resort system. He doesn't go heavily into it, but in at least one of his books, I forget which unfortunately.

Comrade, I stand woefully, woefully corrected. :blushing: :(

[Dimentio]

Mostly post-revolution, but I believe that unless about 10-25% of the economy is under socialised (popular) control before the event, it will be hard. Ideally, as much of the economy as possible should be subdued before political control is established.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you read my programmatic commentary on Cooperative Production? Note how it tackles the problem of proprietary or small-business-corporate hiring of labour for profit.


That it is a generally better system of transition, because it creates more ambiguity and allows the working class the time they need to adapt themselves. It also could mean that we could utilise the Meidner push and pull methodology (use heavy taxation just to put such burden on capitalists shoulders that it would break their financial spine and force them to lay off their workers, who then are pulled into the alternative economy).

Try this:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=841

Out of the box

I’m sure the Weekly Worker will have an article or two on the Tory exploitation scheme euphemistically called ‘community work’. This letter is not so much a commentary on this, but a follow-up to my previous letter, ‘Bubbling’ (October 15 2009).

The Draft programme isn’t so much the Draft programme of the CPGB as it is the Draft programme of Jack Conrad, as evidenced by the deficiency of discussion on unemployment and on altering the economic sections of that programme to allow more economically radical demands. Nonetheless, some economically radical demands are more important than others, among them the proposals of left economists Hyman Minsky and Rudolf Meidner, and I feel these should be discussed (also as an out-of-the-box means of discrediting what remains of social democracy):

1. Universalisation of annual, non-deflationary adjustments for all non-executive and non-celebrity remunerations, pensions and insurance benefits to at least match rising costs of living.

2. Fuller socio-income democracy through direct proposals and rejections - at the national level and above - regarding the creation and adjustment of income multiple limits in all industries, for all major working class and other professions, and across all types of income.

3. The realisation of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services.

4. The increase of real social savings and investment by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits, by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organised worker funds.

[Meidner: The respective specifics are twenty percent of business profits - and no net loss rebates, the exact opposite of “privatize the gains, socialize the losses” bailouts - fifty employees, and regional and not union-level organization of wage-earner funds.]

5. Enabling the full replacement of the hiring of labour for small-business profit by cooperative production, and also society’s cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans.

Despite the broad economism of the Krichevskii-Trotsky method of transitory action platformism (not at all worthy of the term ‘transitional programme’), these specific demands are more than adequate as replacements for the slogans pertaining to sliding scales of wages and hours, public works, and nationalise-the-top-such-and-such.

[Dimentio]

Sweden would probably have been the most socialist country in the history of the world if the Employee funds had been institutionalised and not abolished.

[Hit The North]

Comrade Sanpal didn't say the bourgeoisie would continue to exist as a class post-revolution. Any private ownership would strictly be petit-bourgeois.



So the revolution resolves itself in a class compromise with the petite bourgeoisie - one which has no scope for becoming gross bourgeoisie and is doomed to extinction?* Perhaps. But so what? What would it conrtribute to the further extension of communist relations? How would its retrograde development (remember, as a sector of the economy it is winding down to extinction) help to push us materially further towards communism?

__________________________________________________ _
*And this seems like a ludicrously crappy business plan and set of prospects for recruiting people to a class of small proprietors.

[Dimentio]

Maybe because a 100% transition could lead into disasters?

Like the Great Leap Forward?

[Hit The North]

Maybe because a 100% transition could lead into disasters?

Like the Great Leap Forward?

I'm not sure what you mean by a '100% transition' or how it can be quantified, but I doubt the kind of top-down authoritarianism of the Great Leap Forward is one.

[Reznov]

Constantine was a Roman Emperor who greatly benefitted Christianity by officially legalising it while in reality undermining the old religions, giving Christianity a favoured treatment. If he had simply de-legalised all old religions and made Christianity the only allowed religion, he would probably have been murdered quite quickly or at least met much more opposition.

Therefore, I wonder if not some sort of combination between a NEP and a more socialised economy could exist during the transitionary phase, where both systems of production are officially treated equal but where in reality the latter alternative is heavilyu favoured?

Would you mind elaborating a little more on Constantine and what he did?

I mean, exactly what did he do and how?

And, how do you think these things could be applied to modern day socalism? (Can it in this day and age?)

[RED DAVE]

Constantine was a Roman Emperor who greatly benefitted Christianity by officially legalising it while in reality undermining the old religions, giving Christianity a favoured treatment. If he had simply de-legalised all old religions and made Christianity the only allowed religion, he would probably have been murdered quite quickly or at least met much more opposition.

Therefore, I wonder if not some sort of combination between a NEP and a more socialised economy could exist during the transitionary phase, where both systems of production are officially treated equal but where in reality the latter alternative is heavilyu favoured?What is your objection to socialism itself? Why do you, as do the social democrats, favor a transitional economy, which is part capitalism?

A mixed economy is a condition of dual class power. It will either tilt over to socialism or capitalism? Why would the working class want anything like this when it, by act of revolution, has established its own society: socialism.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Sweden would probably have been the most socialist country in the history of the world if the Employee funds had been institutionalised and not abolished.Sweden is now and always has been thoroughly capitalism. No matter how strong the welfare state, if the working class does not control production, a society, no matter how warm and friendly is may seem is capitalism.

Do you really understand the difference between socialism and capitalism? There is no transitional society between the two. Either the capitalist class runs the economy: capitalism. Or the working class runs the economy: socialism. If the bureaucracy, through the state, runs the economy, it's state capitalism, which will morph into capitalism itself.

RED DAVE

[Demogorgon]

Fine. But maybe you could address some of my questions?
Okay, that was a bit cursory, but I thought you may have misunderstood me or else I was sounding more reformist than I had meant to. You ask mainly I think how a situation where workers and employers are coming to an uneasy sort of truce is meant to work, but I don't think that is exactly what is meant here and it certainly isn't what I want.

Rather if you have a situation where state power has been taken over and the task begins of taking apart the capitalist system then it would presumably be one of the first tasks to end capitalist private property, the method I should think being ending the legal status of private capital and bringing it all under social ownership. I mentioned earlier about control of it being devolved down to smaller groups in return for them making a contribution to society, well for a first step it could be that some firms were allowed to have control of some resources on such terms subject to supervision of society. That isn't a long term solution but it could be used as a half-way house.

This does not mean suspending class struggle, quite the opposite, the situation would be one where workers had made major gains but hadn't completely overturned the capitalists, this system would be one of shoring up those gains and working at chipping away at the rest of capitalist power. I am not sure exactly where Dimentio is getting the idea from, but I am looking at the change from feudalism to capitalism in the British isles, the change happened over the course of several periods of change not one big change. In each case the aristocracy gave up a lot to the emerging class in return for hanging onto something. The advantage for the bourgeoisie was that this meant less blood was spilled and also they had the chance to consolidate each development before moving on. It is possible that something like that could happen again.

Of course we are speaking academically here, none of us know how the revolution will play out when it comes and if it happens all at once, so much the better, but I think it helps to have a game plan for a more torturous process because I think that is rather more likely.

[Demogorgon]

Sweden would probably have been the most socialist country in the history of the world if the Employee funds had been institutionalised and not abolished.
I have a question about those actually, I have read some stuff from where they were in the proposal stage with fairly moderate socialist authors like Robert Dahl full of praise for them but then they were in place for nine years to not much effect as far as I can see. Was there much gained from them during that time or were they too half-heartedly implemented?

[Dimentio]

I have a question about those actually, I have read some stuff from where they were in the proposal stage with fairly moderate socialist authors like Robert Dahl full of praise for them but then they were in place for nine years to not much effect as far as I can see. Was there much gained from them during that time or were they too half-heartedly implemented?

A watered-down version was eventually implemented in the 80's. The original version would have meant a majority worker ownership of the major corporations by 2000.

[Demogorgon]

A watered-down version was eventually implemented in the 80's. The original version would have meant a majority worker ownership of the major corporations by 2000.
Did the watered down version actually achieve anything though? Obviously it didn't have a major effect, but was there anything significant from it?

[Dimentio]

Yes. It turned a lot of workers angry at the union, because it increased their membership fees.

[Dimentio]

Sweden is now and always has been thoroughly capitalism. No matter how strong the welfare state, if the working class does not control production, a society, no matter how warm and friendly is may seem is capitalism.

Do you really understand the difference between socialism and capitalism? There is no transitional society between the two. Either the capitalist class runs the economy: capitalism. Or the working class runs the economy: socialism. If the bureaucracy, through the state, runs the economy, it's state capitalism, which will morph into capitalism itself.

RED DAVE

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

[Dimentio]

I'm unclear. Is this meant to be implemented pre or post revolution?

Yes.

But I also think organisations should strive to attain ownership of land and companies pre-revolution.

[Demogorgon]

Yes. It turned a lot of workers angry at the union, because it increased their membership fees.A typical example of what started out as a good idea being mutilated to the point it did nobody any good, then?

[Dimentio]

Yes. Though the original proposal failed in a referendum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A typical example of what started out as a good idea being mutilated to the point it did nobody any good, then?

The increase of real social savings and investment by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits, by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organised worker funds.

[Meidner: The respective specifics are twenty percent of business profits - and no net loss rebates, the exact opposite of “privatize the gains, socialize the losses” bailouts - fifty employees, and regional and not union-level organization of wage-earner funds.]

What most likely happened in reality was this:

1) Twenty percent of business profits? Probably less.
2) All private enterprises meeting #3 below? Only in some sectors of the Swedish economy.
3) Fifty or more employees? Probably higher.
4) Regional or union-level? Maybe Dimentio can enlighten me, but I'm guessing the latter.

[Dimentio]

It was neither the regional or the union-level, but organised on the national level, centrally managed by several funds established by the LO, which is the closest thing Sweden has had to a national union (semi-compulsory membership until recently, compulsory double membership LO/SAP until the 1990's).

The actual employee funds which were introduced in 1982 were barred from ever acquiring a majority share of the businesses. That I think destroyed it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, there goes the "mandatory" part. How could it be "mandatory" if the funds couldn't acquire a majority?

[RED DAVE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_fundsThis has nothing to do with socialism. it was a confidence trick of capitalism. It did not succeed even on its own bullshit terms.

Socialism is the direct, revolutionary, democratic rule of the working class. It has nothing to do with this shit.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You don't know what you're talking about.

[Demogorgon]

Yes. Though the original proposal failed in a referendum.Really? Looking up referendums in Sweden, wikipedia has no national ones between the 1980 nuclear power one and the 94 EU one.

Anyway, you mention the final policy only allowing minority ownership, wasn't that quite similar to what was tried in Denmark?

[Dimentio]

The referendum was in the 1970's. After that, the Employee funds were dead.

[ZeroNowhere]

Most of us are evidently quite young. People who already have an employment and families are less likely to want to overthrow the system, since they already have so much to lose.
Yes, they do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis).

[Demogorgon]

The referendum was in the 1970's. After that, the Employee funds were dead.
Again, I can't find any record of it. The 1957 pension referendum is the next national referendum I can find.

Sorry to sound pedantic here, but this is a matter I am interested in so I am grateful for new information.

[Dimentio]

Ah. The 1976 general elections were seen as a general referendum on the Employee Funds. The Soc-dems lost power for the first time since 40 years.

[Demogorgon]

Ah. The 1976 general elections were seen as a general referendum on the Employee Funds. The Soc-dems lost power for the first time since 40 years.
I see, though I thought that there were several factors leading to the loss there. Given though that the policy remained in part and also that Palme remained leader of the Social Democrats despite their defeat, I would have presumed that the party itself did not see it as a definite defeat of the policy?