Die Neue Zeit
22nd January 2011, 09:17
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.
Not in his earlier works, but in a whole blog, but here he shoots himself in the foot:
http://www.ccds-discussion.org/?p=88
The basics:
The basic model of Economic Democracy, as set out in ‘A Worthy Socialism’, features three institutions: workplace democracy, a market for goods and services, and social control of investment.
The good:
I assert that public control of investment should make unemployment less of a problem.
I now think that this mechanism is insufficient. Structural unemployment is on the rise almost everywhere in the world.
[...]
I now propose a fourth institution: the government as employer-of-last-resort. The government should stand ready to give a relatively low-paying job to any able-bodied person who wants to work but cannot find any other satisfactory employment. This is not, on the face of it, a radical proposal. It has been championed on occasion by social democratic parties, although not, to my knowledge, ever implemented.
For good reason. Such a program cannot work under capitalism. Workers become emboldened in a full-employment economy and make excessive demands on their employers, who must either take a cut in profits (not good for investor confidence) or pass on the costs to consumers (not good for them, or, more importantly, for finance capital, which stands in horror of inflation).
It can work under Economic Democracy. It should be part of the basic model. It should also be put on the short-run reform agenda.
I don't agree with the phrase "relatively low-paying job," unless Schweickart actually considers Minsky's living wage to be such.
Now, the bad and ugly:
Well and good, but there is another role played by some capitalists, a creative, entrepreneurial role. This role is assumed by a large number of individuals in a capitalist society, mostly by ‘petty capitalists’ who set up their own small businesses, but by some ‘grand capitalists’ as well, individuals who turn innovative ideas into major industries and reap a fortune in the process.
[...]
Moreover, it is clear from experience that as difficult as it is to set up a small private business (witness the high failure rates), it is even more difficult to start up a new cooperative enterprise. In both cases initiative and business skills are necessary. But a ‘cooperative entrepreneur’ needs additional skills of a more interpersonal nature, since she cannot hire and fire at will. Indeed, she must subordinate her own will to the will of the collective. Perhaps someday these skills will be so widespread that society need not rely on the initiative of petty capitalists to keep its small business sector vibrant, but that time has not yet come.
He obviously didn't read Marx on planned cooperative production or Lassalle on state aid. :confused:
Should Economic Democracy also allow for ‘grand capitalists’, individuals who run large, dynamic companies? Initially I didn’t think so. I was inclined to think that the entrepreneurial function of the large capitalists could be readily enough socialized. After all, most basic research in advanced capitalist societies is funded by the government. Most innovations come from government or university laboratories, and even those generated in the ‘private sector’ tend to come from scientists and engineers who are employees of these private companies, not from the owners.
[...]
I am no longer persuaded by this line of thought. For several reasons. First and foremost, I am no longer convinced that an entrepreneurial capitalist class need pose a serious threat to a society in which democratic workplaces are predominant.
:rolleyes:
EDIT: It appears Schweickart did support an ELR program, after all.
Not in his earlier works, but in a whole blog, but here he shoots himself in the foot:
http://www.ccds-discussion.org/?p=88
The basics:
The basic model of Economic Democracy, as set out in ‘A Worthy Socialism’, features three institutions: workplace democracy, a market for goods and services, and social control of investment.
The good:
I assert that public control of investment should make unemployment less of a problem.
I now think that this mechanism is insufficient. Structural unemployment is on the rise almost everywhere in the world.
[...]
I now propose a fourth institution: the government as employer-of-last-resort. The government should stand ready to give a relatively low-paying job to any able-bodied person who wants to work but cannot find any other satisfactory employment. This is not, on the face of it, a radical proposal. It has been championed on occasion by social democratic parties, although not, to my knowledge, ever implemented.
For good reason. Such a program cannot work under capitalism. Workers become emboldened in a full-employment economy and make excessive demands on their employers, who must either take a cut in profits (not good for investor confidence) or pass on the costs to consumers (not good for them, or, more importantly, for finance capital, which stands in horror of inflation).
It can work under Economic Democracy. It should be part of the basic model. It should also be put on the short-run reform agenda.
I don't agree with the phrase "relatively low-paying job," unless Schweickart actually considers Minsky's living wage to be such.
Now, the bad and ugly:
Well and good, but there is another role played by some capitalists, a creative, entrepreneurial role. This role is assumed by a large number of individuals in a capitalist society, mostly by ‘petty capitalists’ who set up their own small businesses, but by some ‘grand capitalists’ as well, individuals who turn innovative ideas into major industries and reap a fortune in the process.
[...]
Moreover, it is clear from experience that as difficult as it is to set up a small private business (witness the high failure rates), it is even more difficult to start up a new cooperative enterprise. In both cases initiative and business skills are necessary. But a ‘cooperative entrepreneur’ needs additional skills of a more interpersonal nature, since she cannot hire and fire at will. Indeed, she must subordinate her own will to the will of the collective. Perhaps someday these skills will be so widespread that society need not rely on the initiative of petty capitalists to keep its small business sector vibrant, but that time has not yet come.
He obviously didn't read Marx on planned cooperative production or Lassalle on state aid. :confused:
Should Economic Democracy also allow for ‘grand capitalists’, individuals who run large, dynamic companies? Initially I didn’t think so. I was inclined to think that the entrepreneurial function of the large capitalists could be readily enough socialized. After all, most basic research in advanced capitalist societies is funded by the government. Most innovations come from government or university laboratories, and even those generated in the ‘private sector’ tend to come from scientists and engineers who are employees of these private companies, not from the owners.
[...]
I am no longer persuaded by this line of thought. For several reasons. First and foremost, I am no longer convinced that an entrepreneurial capitalist class need pose a serious threat to a society in which democratic workplaces are predominant.
:rolleyes: