The Corporation

[RGacky3]

One could argue that the institution of the corporation is the largest government program ever.

Most of the arguments between market people and socialists, is between the role of the public sector and private, I think this is the wrong discussion.

The right discussion is the laws regulating the internal structure of the largest government/capitalist institution that exists.

As a GOVERNMENT entity, it should be subject to public policy, why would'nt it be? So why should'nt corporations be required to be democratic institutions controlled by the workers? Why should'nt we have democracy in the workplace in corporations, Co-Determination, or full determination.

If you don't want that don't become a corporation, don't come to the government asking for special privileges and protections, but if you do, why not have workers democracy be a requirement.

One example of this is the German Co-Determination system, which has been extremely successful.

Its not bigger government at all, no re-distribution of wealth, nothing, but its more communist than nationalizing a bunch of industries.

[thefinalmarch]

Germany's co-determination system isn't "more communist" than any other organisational structures the bourgeoisie utilise to manage their businesses. The workers' representatives elected to the board still manage capital to some extent and, ultimately, help to keep the power of capital afloat. For a system to be communist in any meaningful sense, the workers as a whole must be in complete control of the means of production and capital, wage-labour and value must be abolished. There are no "degrees" of communism -- and nothing meaningfully communist can exist in a fundamentally capitalist organisational structure.

There are reasons the capitalist class hasn't done away with the co-determination system yet: productivity is increased, the frequency of strikes is lessened, and there is less working class militancy overall (as most labour disputes are taken to the representatives rather than out on to the streets or on the shop floor).

[RGacky3]

productivity has increased, yet wages still go up. And if the internal structure is half workers control and have capitalist control .... its a pretty fair argument to call it half communistic :).

The reason the capitalist class has'nt done away with it is because they can't. If the workers manage their buisiness its a communist institution (using Marxian definitions).

Also Capital is not inherently capitalistic, ALL machines are Capital, all wealth is capital, and so on, we arn't getting rid of capital. We are getting rid of the power of Capital, and co-determination at least puts half the power into the workers and away from the holders of capital.

Its obviously just an example, the goal is 100% determination.

[Thirsty Crow]

The reason the capitalist class has'nt done away with it is because they can't. If the workers manage their buisiness its a communist institution (using Marxian definitions). Still spouting that nonsense, eh?


Also Capital is not inherently capitalistic, ALL machines are Capital, all wealth is capital, and so on, we arn't getting rid of capital. We are getting rid of the power of Capital, and co-determination at least puts half the power into the workers and away from the holders of capital.First, say it out loud, "capital is not inherently capitalistic". Say it out loud and consider the absurdity.
Also, I'd say that you have no idea how capital is determined, analyzed by Marxists if you think that machines are capital, and that it is enough to change the ownership relations in favour of workers' emplyoed at a particular enterprise.


Its obviously just an example, the goal is 100% determination.The goal is total elimination of capital, and with it, wage labour (and here you should ask yourself I'm crazy enough to call for the elimination of machinery, or whether I operate with a different understanding of capital).

I mean, you basically advocate a kind of a "radical reformism", something like mutualism or "market socialism", failing to grasp how would such restructurings keep the basic social antagonisms, inherent to the very existence and operation of capital, intact.



There are reasons the capitalist class hasn't done away with the co-determination system yet: productivity is increased, the frequency of strikes is lessened, and there is less working class militancy overall (as most labour disputes are taken to the representatives rather than out on to the streets).
The failure to perceive how exactly do schemes of self-management, in all its possible forms, function within and upon class struggle is to be effectively blind, in the political sense. Though, I'm afraid that Gacky is incapable to understanding this basic point.

[thefinalmarch]

productivity has increased, yet wages still go up. And if the internal structure is half workers control and have capitalist control .... its a pretty fair argument to call it half communistic :).
Enlighten me. How do you objectively define "half-communism"?


The reason the capitalist class has'nt done away with it is because they can't. If the workers manage their buisiness its a communist institution (using Marxian definitions).
The capitalist class can do away with it if it wants. There have been discussions in the Bundestag about reducing the influence of workers in business. Again, this is unlikely to happen because the capitalist class gets too much out of it.


Also Capital is not inherently capitalistic, ALL machines are Capital, all wealth is capital, and so on, we arn't getting rid of capital. We are getting rid of the power of Capital, and co-determination at least puts half the power into the workers and away from the holders of capital.
I should have elaborated further; these representatives are managing on behalf of the bourgeoisie. You could go as far as to say that, the representatives, like everyone else in management positions, are part of the modern middle class.

[RGacky3]

First, say it out loud, "capital is not inherently capitalistic". Say it out loud and consider the absurdity.


... No its not, because I'm using a little more cognative power than just word association. Capital means the means of production.


Also, I'd say that you have no idea how capital is determined, analyzed by Marxists if you think that machines are capital, and that it is enough to change the ownership relations in favour of workers' emplyoed at a particular enterprise.


Machines are not capital??? What do you think capital is?

Its not changing the ownership, its changing the control over the production.

I'm using Richard Wolffs Marxian class analysis, look into it.


The goal is total elimination of capital, and with it, wage labour (and here you should ask yourself I'm crazy enough to call for the elimination of machinery, or whether I operate with a different understanding of capital).


whats your understanding? I'm using the understanding used by everyone in economics including marx.


I mean, you basically advocate a kind of a "radical reformism", something like mutualism or "market socialism", failing to grasp how would such restructurings keep the basic social antagonisms, inherent to the very existence and operation of capital, intact.

You are assuming that this is the ONLY thing I advocate.

But you know what? Workers with co-determination have more actual workable say over the production and distribution than they had under the USSR, or other state-capitalist systems, I'd say thats more communistic.

[Thirsty Crow]

But you know what? Workers with co-determination have more actual workable say over the production and distribution than they had under the USSR, or other state-capitalist systems, I'd say thats more communistic.See, the problem with your approach is that it is based on an abstract quantification of supposed features of the management structure (control and ownership issues, within the confines of the capitalist enterprise) which results in a weird gradation where it is possible to talk about what's "more communistic". All the while you neglect the primary focus: class stuggle itself.

[Thirsty Crow]

... No its not, because I'm using a little more cognative power than just word association. Capital means the means of production.

Capital is a specific social relation of production under which the means of production appear excactly as capital, ass well as labour power which is commodified (variable capital) for the purpose of value production, and this value becomes self-expanding in relation to the passing of the cycles of accumulation (accumulation is always expanded reproduction of value).

If you wished to argue that capital is the means of production - then you would be forced to conclude that capitalism is an enternal feature of human civilization from its very start. You would have to ignorantly dismiss all the distinction between how labour is organized predominantly today, in capitalism, and how was it organized in feudalism or slave holding societies.

Finally, no matter what author you borrow your blinding approach to determining what capital is - it is not one employed by Marx, who spent a lot of his time debunking the allegations of the so called vulgar economists (capitalist apologia of his day) who "showed" how capitalism is natural and eternal, specifically by referring to capital as simply the means of production.

[Tim Cornelis]

Co-determination as exists in Germany, the Netherlands or other Northern European countries has absolutely nothing to do with "communism". I think you're fundamentally mistaken on the nature of these "works councils", they are not workers and capitalists sitting in a council with both sides having 50% in votes, it's indirectly elected representatives of labour unions (who incidentally made their career out of it) negotiating over wages and making collective agreements, or else the unions go on strike.

In a works council the employees have the right to propose certain policies, but the employers decide whether it's adopted.

[RGacky3]

See, the problem with your approach is that it is based on an abstract quantification of supposed features of the management structure (control and ownership issues, within the confines of the capitalist enterprise) which results in a weird gradation where it is possible to talk about what's "more communistic". All the while you neglect the primary focus: class stuggle itself.

What makes the institution capitalist IS the internal class structure, and that internal class structure IS teh manegement structure.

Class struggle is ultimately about control of the production, and the surplus, i.e. its a management struggle.


Capital is a specific social relation of production under which the means of production appear excactly as capital, ass well as labour power which is commodified (variable capital) for the purpose of value production, and this value becomes self-expanding in relation to the passing of the cycles of accumulation (accumulation is always expanded reproduction of value).


Exactly, you have variable capital, and non-variable capital, non-variable capital is machines and the such, traded on the market as capital and used in production as capital. Constant capital is defined by Marx as the non-human factors of production, thats what I refer to when I say Capital, and thats what we are talking about.


If you wished to argue that capital is the means of production - then you would be forced to conclude that capitalism is an enternal feature of human civilization from its very start. You would have to ignorantly dismiss all the distinction between how labour is organized predominantly today, in capitalism, and how was it organized in feudalism or slave holding societies.


No you would'nt, because the existance of constant capital (what other economists just call capital), is not the defining feature of capitalism, the organization of production is the defining feature (along with profit and markets.)


Finally, no matter what author you borrow your blinding approach to determining what capital is - it is not one employed by Marx, who spent a lot of his time debunking the allegations of the so called vulgar economists (capitalist apologia of his day) who "showed" how capitalism is natural and eternal, specifically by referring to capital as simply the means of production.

Changing definitions of stuff does'nt proove shit, what if I start calling means of production Monarchs, does that mean monarchy is natural ... Common now.

Marx refered to Capital in the traditional sense as constant capital, ONLY to make the point that labor was commodified and treated as if it was regular capital (in the sense of traditional economists), Marx's definition was never much different from the Classical economists, really other than that.

[Thirsty Crow]

What makes the institution capitalist IS the internal class structure, and that internal class structure IS teh manegement structure.
What makes an enterprise capitalist is not, in the final analysis, its management structure. There are workers' co-ops which are capitalist business entities, producing for the sale on the market, for profit. The distribution of the surplus within the isolated enterprise is not what determines production. But you wouldn't know anything about that, as indicated by your stubborn refusal to confront pieces of critical literature, specifically on Mondragon and on the function of self-management within capitalism, which I provided elsewhere.


Class struggle is ultimately about control of the production, and the surplus, i.e. its a management struggle.
Class struggle is first of all a battle for control over production, that is true, but you seem to be missing out on the fact that you might "socialize" the independent industries, to transform the management structure and still have capitalist relations of production, specific forms of competition and all the resulting antagonisms. In other words, its not a management struggle only, but a very political struggle which will fall short and end up in reproducing old social antagonisms if capital, as a social relation, isn't abolished. For communists, it's not the goal to turn workers' into petty capitalists via their status as shareholders or owners of a certian amount of capita pooled together, but the abolition of the production of exchange value.

[RGacky3]

There are workers' co-ops which are capitalist business entities, producing for the sale on the market, for profit. The distribution of the surplus within the isolated enterprise is not what determines production. But you wouldn't know anything about that, as indicated by your stubborn refusal to confront pieces of critical literature, specifically on Mondragon and on the function of self-management within capitalism, which I provided elsewhere.


Although its very possible to have a Co-op not run for profit.

Could you re-post that piece? I'll read it if you look into RIchard Wolffs class analysis.


Class struggle is first of all a battle for control over production, that is true, but you seem to be missing out on the fact that you might "socialize" the independent industries, to transform the management structure and still have capitalist relations of production, specific forms of competition and all the resulting antagonisms. In other words, its not a management struggle only, but a very political struggle which will fall short and end up in reproducing old social antagonisms if capital, as a social relation, isn't abolished. For communists, it's not the goal to turn workers' into petty capitalists via their status as shareholders or owners of a certian amount of capita pooled together, but the abolition of the production of exchange value.

its not just being shareholders, its actual workable control over the production.

The market still is the driving force in what I'm talking about (at least the consumption part, not the part for investment) and thats a different struggle.

But an institution, an enterprise run by the workers is not the same as your typical capitalist buisiness, they arn't petty capitalist because they are making their living off labor.

[RichardAWilson]

Nothing can be "half communism." There's capitalism and then there's communism. During the transitional period, there's something called socialism.

There's worker control of the means of production and then there's bourgeois control of the means of production. There is no in between.

In Germany, the ruling classes still control the means of production. The working classes are allowed to participate by the degree to which the ruling classes allow them.

Co-Determination is a progressive and noble ambition and it has allowed the German working classes to avoid some of the sacrifices that have been forced upon us in the Anglo-Saxon Countries (I.e. Australia, Britain, Ireland and the United States).

Nonetheless, German businesses are still capitalized institutions. (Income inequality is still rising in Germany and companies that are downsizing are boosting executive compensation with the savings.)


http://www.thelocal.de/money/20080302-10439.html

Read this article :)


Several German companies laid off thousands of workers last week, causing widespread controversy in the light of many of the companies' robust profit margins.

Officials say they are baffled by the trend.

On a side note,

Instead of investing in Germany, some German financial institutions, such as Deutsche Bank, are gambling on Vegas.


http://www.thelocal.de/money/20111018-38275.html


The scale of Deutsche Bank's exposure to Las Vegas is reportedly almost the same as its exposure to Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal (the countries most affected by the eurozone crisis) put together.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is a good semantical debate on what capitalism is, and whether these procedures are socialist (they are not).

But a more important question is; do you find this better or worse (take neutral out of the equation for the sake of argument) than the current system of full private ownership?

[RichardAWilson]

do you find this better or worse

Co-Determination is much better. The workers do have a voice (even if that voice isn't the final say) and it does insulate the workers from excessive exploitation.

However, like you've said, Co-Determination doesn't equal Socialism anymore than establishing a living wage would equal Socialism.

What Co-Determination does show us is that which is possible under Socialism. If something as simple as Co-Determination can lead to increased labor productivity and efficiency, imagine the economic accomplishments that could be made under absolute worker control.

[Rafiq]

... No its not, because I'm using a little more cognative power than just word association. Capital means the means of production.


I remember an old quote by Marx:

What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other.

A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.


Marx was arguing that the Machines, etc, the MOP is not Capital initially.

[RGacky3]

Nothing can be "half communism." There's capitalism and then there's communism. During the transitional period, there's something called socialism.


I personally don't buy that line, of a transitional period. Communism is worker control over the means of production.

Socialism is (more or less) an economy run for social need rather than profit, or a democratic economy.

I am a little sick and tired of this holy absolutist definition of communism people have, and even socialism. That communism can NEVER exist, that first socialism has to exist. Or even that these things are set systems or that there cannot be different models.

The idea of worker control of industry IS communism, now Co-determination is not that, but it is a concept that comes from the concept of communism.


On a side note,

Instead of investing in Germany, some German financial institutions, such as Deutsche Bank, are gambling on Vegas.


Yeah but those are banks :)


Read this article :)


Interesting, but obviously you guys are right that the larger capitalist system has its effect, even on coops or co-determination.

[RichardAWilson]

The idea of worker control of industry IS communism, now Co-determination is not that, but it is a concept that comes from the concept of communism.

As I illustrated above, Co-Determination isn't the same as worker control. Yes, workers have a voice. In the end, shareholders and executives are the final voice.

German business is still run in the interests of shareholders, financial institutions and executives.

How else would you explain downsizing at some of the most profitable companies in Germany?

It's not like they're having to downsize to preserve jobs and wages.

Socialism and communism mean absolute worker control of production and distribution.

Businesses (I.e. Cooperatives and national industries) would still have to downsize as labor becomes more productive. However, the difference between now and socialism is that resources would be made available to retrain those workers and provide them with new and more fitting jobs.


Co-determination is not that, but it is a concept that comes from the concept of communism.

You're right. Co-Determination (the idea) is rooted in left-wing (I.e. Socialist) ideology. However, there's a big difference between socialistic ideas and socialism. Should we assume Canada is a socialist nation because it has universal health care? Should we assume that France is a socialist nation because of the 35-hour working week?

One has to be mindful to differentiate between meaningful reform and genuine socialism.

I believe Co-Determination is a useful model that does give workers a voice.

Furthermore, to the degree that Co-Determination empowers the workingman and shows him the possibilities, it can contribute to the building of socialism. After all, we're supposed to struggle for reform, even while remembering the longer-term ambition.

[RGacky3]

Businesses (I.e. Cooperatives and national industries) would still have to downsize as labor becomes more productive

Why? Why could'nt they all just work less for the same money?

My point in this thread is just that the narrative should'nt be more or less government, and socialist parties and revolutions should'nt be (primarily) about public control of the means of production, I think priority 1, should be worker control, directly of the workplace.

The first thing people think about if some leftist revolution happens of lefitst party comes in is what to natoinalize, that should be an afterthought, first order of buisiness is to re-organize the industries and buisinesses.

[RGacky3]

Cooperatives aside, I think Socialists, in analysing modern Capitalism, have to really take a good look at the corporate institution, which is THE major institution of capitalism.

One could argue that along with other factors (tendancy for the rate of profit to fall in the productive economy, productivity leading to excess capacity and a need for growth), that the corporation contributed to the leading role of the financial industry in modern Capitalism, since corporations allow Capitalists to heavily leverage their buisinesses and thus decrease risk (while adding systemic risk), this leads financial industries being major major stakeholders in the productive economy, and leaves productive and distributive capitalists heavily subject to the financial capitalists power.

[Judicator]

Why should corporations asking for things like due process entitle the government to push any restriction or requirement onto them that it wouldn't be entitled to push onto private citizens?

[Revolution starts with U]

Why should corporations asking for things like due process entitle the government to push any restriction or requirement onto them that it wouldn't be entitled to push onto private citizens?

Why do you not mention that they are also asking for limited liability?

... you thought we would let that bit of propaganda go unnoticed? :lol:

[RGacky3]

Why should corporations asking for things like due process entitle the government to push any restriction or requirement onto them that it wouldn't be entitled to push onto private citizens?


corporations are state chartered entities ... And they are not private citizens.