Party-Based Alternative Culture: For-Profit Coops vs. NPOs? [Also on hiring halls]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Party-Based Alternative Culture: For-Profit Coops vs. Non-Profit Organizations



Preamble

I don't know how to pose this, so I'll start first with an excerpt from a recent letter of mine:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=902


On for-profit cooperatives, ‘self-help’, etc, this is too much a British fetish, not really relevant to the Social Democratic Party of Germany’s alternative culture model.

In Lassalle’s day, it was the liberals who employed ‘self-help’ rhetoric. Again, this goes back to the illusion of economic independence. My preference is for the non-profit organisational ‘business model’ over the for-profit co-op ‘business model’. At the end of the day, such a model would stress what the Eisenach programme combined: demands for the dictatorship of the proletariat, for politico-ideological independence and for state aid for economic reform.

In terms of the proverbial bottom line, of course, things are more complicated:


This is what I'm after: "including but not limited to cultural societies, recreational clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc."

Once you take the theory off the paper and think about applying it in real life, it gets tricky.

Indeed:


In developing the Alternative Culture, indeed not all institutions can be developed all at once.

1) Food banks, as you and I agree on, are good for starters.
2) Funeral homes are downright expensive these days, but I mentioned this because the Paris Commune's "Blanquists" organized them. For all their overtly elitist theory, they at least organized Alternative Culture, unlike certain "vanguardists."
3) Cultural societies can be as basic as choir, orchestra, band, other music groups.
4) Recreational clubs needn't rent too much space. The pre-war SPD had cycling and hiking clubs, not to mention chess societies and rowing clubs.

A poster here even suggested "People's Transportation":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-transportationi-t167262/index.html


Would making regional networks of human transportation be a possible way to 'seize property' into the hands of the proletariat? I mean starting out with some old buses and creating a regional transportation system run cooperatively.


That's an interesting approach to Alternative Culture, provided that these services are run on a legally "non-profit" basis.

That, however, is just strictly for the non-profit organization (NPO) side of things.

The basic question of for-profit coop vs. NPO has a twist when considering one particular kind of organization that has contemporary ramifications: the employment agency.



Union History

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


In organized labor, a hiring hall is an organization, usually under the auspices of a labor union, which has the responsibility of furnishing new recruits for employers who have a collective bargaining agreement with the union.

[...]

The presence of a hiring hall places the responsibility on the union to ensure that its members are suitably qualified and responsible individuals before assigning them to an employer. The union will often enforce a basic code of conduct amongst its members to ensure smooth operation of the hiring hall (to prevent members from double-booking, for example).

[...]

Hiring halls are generally most prevalent in skilled trades and where employers need to find qualified recruits on short notice.

So it's not just the maligned temp agency that's involved in this kind of stuff.



Socialist Program


We envisage a system in which people are directly employed by the community rather than by companies or independent ‘enterprises’. It is always in the interest of society that workers should be redeployed as quickly and efficiently as possible when their previous work is no longer useful; by making ‘society’ the actual employer this interest is borne home.

If Mary, say, were seeking a new project to work with, she would go along to an employment agency and register her skills, how hard she wanted to work, for how many hours a week etc. The employment agency would then tap into the Planning data-net to find the best match between Mary’s offer to work and the requirements of projects in the area. This means the planning authorities would have up-to-date records on the amount and types of labour available, making it possible to draw up gross labour budgets for the economy as a whole. Unlike present-day employment agencies, the positions available would match the workers seeking projects in overall numbers and approximate types. Once Mary has decided which project she wants to work on, and has convinced those currently working on it of her suitability, she signs a contract with the employment agency stating that she will work for so many hours a week on a particular project. This is then registered with the planning system, which starts crediting her account with the hours worked.



Fully Socialized Labour Markets

With regards to what comrade Cockshott called "fully socialised labour market this side of socialism":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/supply-side-political-t152098/index.html


When considering the newest, cross-sectoral, cross-age (from youth to midlife and beyond), and growing part of the working class that is the precariat, there is growing “casualization” of labour to the point where some economists have described it as a "commodity" in the sense of regular business lingua: a good or service supplied without qualitative differentiation, such as natural resources. Long-standing populist resentment towards the “middleman” can be applied to temporary or casual labour agencies, whose charges increase labour costs without the workers realizing increased labour compensation, let alone much in the way of employer benefits. On the one hand, the proliferation of these agencies does not substantially reduce their payroll costs per unit of service provided. On the other hand, fully extending the responsibilities of public-administered job search agencies and labour ministries overseeing them by reorganizing every single temporary labour agency into a monopoly under public ownership could result in economies of scale for payroll costs and help tackle the problem of structural and cyclical unemployment. With legislation and regulation around gainful wages and working conditions, extra support for temporary workers, and especially rules guaranteeing their ability to refuse lousy wages, working conditions (especially unsafe working conditions), or both, such monopoly may even be the modern means to Hyman Minsky's realization of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services.

Another proposal is simpler, more radical, and less discussed: that “big government” should be the sole de jure employer, hiring all workers directly (with of course the ability to refuse jobs with things like unsafe working conditions) and contracting out all labour services to the private sector and to state enterprises and the rest of the public sector. This promotes gender pay equity and puts a practical end to wage theft such as back pay from small-business employers, which despite labour laws still occurs on the scale of many billions of dollars [...]



Bottom Line?

Should workers' Alternative Culture include some sort of party-administered employment agency, and if so, on what "business model" (for-profit coop vs. NPO)?

The politics should be obvious enough:

1) The likes of the Workers Party in America, like the pre-WWI SPD, call for actual proletarianization of current and prospective members.
2) There has been recent discussion on full-timers in class movements (http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-party-leadership-t168315/index.html), and the problem posed is that of the more tenured full-timers (i.e., how to rotate them out).

[Q]

I'm skeptical about the term "for profit" coops. What does this mean? Where is the surplus directed? If it is used for expanding the coop, and thus function as capital, one could argue it is indeed surplus/profit. But if the surplus is used to keep society rolling, provide for party healthcare (now that's some advanced alternative culture!) for example, then I don't think it could be properly called surplus and the difference between a "for profit" coop and a NPO becomes moot (as I imagine the NPO also provides for party services).

So, what is the distinction here?

[Grenzer]

As always DNZ, interesting post; though I do have some questions about the specifics of this Eisensach type programme. It goes for the DOTP politically straight away, but not for the immediate abolition of capitalism, correct? How would this be sustainable? It seems to me that the political power of the bourgeoisie is a reflection of their economic hegemony, rather than being the other way around.

The idea of alternative culture institutions seems like a brilliant idea to me, though it seems the movement is currently too weak to support such a thing at the present time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm skeptical about the term "for profit" coops. What does this mean?

The likes of Mondragon come to mind. It's very much a for-profit operation.


Where is the surplus directed? If it is used for expanding the coop, and thus function as capital, one could argue it is indeed surplus/profit.

OK, when I said in that Learning thread that non-profits still require an "excess for their land, building, and equipment funds," that's different from "profit" as defined in, say, income tax law or accounting standards. In such legalisms, if an organization is defined as out to make a profit, their income is taxable, as opposed to the activity of a non-profit organization.

It doesn't have to "keep society rolling" in order to not be defined as for-profit. Just knock on the doors of organized religion (the more conventional types, not the "televangelical" media business types in all but name). ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

As always DNZ, interesting post

Thanks, comrade.


I do have some questions about the specifics of this Eisensach type programme. It goes for the DOTP politically straight away, but not for the immediate abolition of capitalism, correct? How would this be sustainable? It seems to me that the political power of the bourgeoisie is a reflection of their economic hegemony, rather than being the other way around.

Since the program is one of the References listed in my work, if you've read the program, great, but if not, here it is and Bakunin's questionable "critique":

http://ia600302.us.archive.org/28/items/EisenachProgram/725_socDemWorkersParty_230.pdf
http://libcom.org/library/a-critique-of-the-german-social-democratic-program-bakunin

Re. "immediate abolition of capitalism": As Bakunin posed muddle-headedly, define "capitalism." Because of the proletariat's economic position, it cannot proceed specifically to abolish generalized commodity production overnight (in before the WSM types and other Gift-stressing Impossibilists come in). One alternative could be some form of "state capitalism."


The idea of alternative culture institutions seems like a brilliant idea to me, though it seems the movement is currently too weak to support such a thing at the present time.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and of course the left-com types are completely against this in the first place.

[Grenzer]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and of course the left-com types are completely against this in the first place.

I agree, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried at the present moment. On the contrary, by setting up the model of such alternative institutions, we could be more prepared for the time when class consciousness advances and the party surges in popularity. This could come sooner than is expected.

I would imagine that the main problem left communists have with the concept of alternative culture institutions is that it may provide the illusion that gains could be made within the capitalist system, and that attempts to make such changes, even if the intent is not reformism, will ultimately not pan out. They could be right, but equally, so could you.

This party of a new type, or more accurately, an old type, has never really had a chance to show whether it works or not.

I also agree that it is important not to delude ourselves over what has been accomplished in the event of successful proletarian conquest of state power, and must be done afterwards. A premature declaration of victory could well be disastrous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, the main problem they have is that big-b swear word that I've emphasized as a process that the working class must master if class rule is to be sustainable.


This party of a new type, or more accurately, an old type, has never really had a chance to show whether it works or not.

That's probably the most intelligent historical one-liner I've heard on comparing the SPD model to repeated experiments with raw syndicalism, councilist fetishes, "anarcho-liberal" stuff, and so on.


I agree, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried at the present moment.

That's why I suggested food banks for starters. Some employment agency might also be another starter organization.

[gorillafuck]

alternative culture isn't any less capitalist than maintream.

[citizen of industry]

Hiring halls are definitely something for unions to shoot for. I believe the longshoreman use hiring halls. It's a big part of industrial unionism. For instance, in my industry, there are several different general unions, which organize locals in various different companies in the same industry. You try any means you can to organize enough power to force management to negotiate with the local and improve the working conditions in that company.

A union hiring hall takes away the power of the company over its workers. They are organized industrially, not by company. Companies have to get labor directly from the hiring hall, on union terms, rather than having individual contracts with individual workers which they use to intimidate them. The workers aren't part of the companies.

But a hiring hall is not something that can be created in a day. That kind of dream is a long way off. You have to organize a lot of people and your union has to be very powerful. You have to battle big corporations and win to get hiring halls in an entire industry. And the union movement has the same problems with splits, tendencies, raiding, factions, etc. that the parties do. And the hardest part is organizing people into the union so you have something to fight with. I've seen people wear themselves out mentally and physically, destroy their family and personal lives, etc. fighting drawn out battles with management for years just trying to organize one small shop, and not even being successful in that. A small local shouldering a huge burden when all it takes is for a good part of their coworkers to join and take some collective action. And as far as I know, DNZ, you don't do any workplace organizing, so why the bit about hiring halls? Just examining it under the lens?

[black magick hustla]

cultures of resistance are built organically from struggle, you can't "manufacture" an alternative culture.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And as far as I know, DNZ, you don't do any workplace organizing, so why the bit about hiring halls? Just examining it under the lens?

I used the term "hiring halls" as part of the subject title, but in my OP I used a more general term which encompasses both hiring halls and temp agencies for the "freeters" in your country.


They are organized industrially, not by company. Companies have to get labor directly from the hiring hall, on union terms, rather than having individual contracts with individual workers which they use to intimidate them. The workers aren't part of the companies.

The same can be said about temp agencies.

[citizen of industry]

I used the term "hiring halls" as part of the subject title, but in my OP I used a more general term which encompasses both hiring halls and temp agencies for the "freeters" in your country.



The same can be said about temp agencies.

Yeah , but dispatch agencies are for profit. Instead of direct hire, which means employing the worker and meeting obligations under labor law, a "contractor" is sent instead to do the same work with no job security or benefits. The temp agency gets a cut and the company doesn't have to follow the law. Against "Temp Agencies" we fight for "Direct Hire." A big difference from hiring halls, where various companies have to come to a single union and purchase labor-power at wages influenced by the union, and have no recourse to performance based wages. Also, disatch workers are atomized if they aren't unionized, and the presence of union halls indicates the power of industry wide strikes.

[citizen of industry]

And you are making a comparison between polar opposites. Highly organized workers who block tracks and go to jail to defend their halls and communities in a dispute, and dispatch which are compelled to give up labor law and job security for work. You can't compare a hiring hall and a temp agency. Temp workers can organize in general unions or geographically though. And if they organize on the shop floor they can win demands through direct action.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism will be born with the rise of food banks and funeral homes.

PR disaster waiting to happen.:lol:

Why would we want food banks post-revolution anyway? Fuck this alternative culture stuff, that really is the stuff of intra-Capitalist demands...i.e. reformism!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah , but dispatch agencies are for profit. Instead of direct hire, which means employing the worker and meeting obligations under labor law, a "contractor" is sent instead to do the same work with no job security or benefits. The temp agency gets a cut and the company doesn't have to follow the law. Against "Temp Agencies" we fight for "Direct Hire." A big difference from hiring halls, where various companies have to come to a single union and purchase labor-power at wages influenced by the union, and have no recourse to performance based wages. Also, disatch workers are atomized if they aren't unionized, and the presence of union halls indicates the power of industry wide strikes.

Not quite re. the "contractor" part. Most temp agencies engage in "direct hire" services as well. I've seen this personally. This is where the temp agency charges one huge lump-sum fee for a direct hire.

As for being for-profit, that does go back to my original question. The likes of comrade Macnair lean towards cooperatives as part of a broader strategy (while Boffy / Bough is really gung-ho), but a coop employment agency, even with union rights for party members working for said agency, is inherently a for-profit organization.


Socialism will be born with the rise of food banks and funeral homes.

PR disaster waiting to happen.:lol:

Why would we want food banks post-revolution anyway? Fuck this alternative culture stuff, that really is the stuff of intra-Capitalist demands...i.e. reformism!

No, I'm saying that genuine class struggle must entail organizing such stuff and more. It doesn't take long for ad hoc councils, "consensus" organs, etc. to yield relevance to bodies that do the nitty-gritty work of issuing edicts and decrees, public policymaking a la think tanks, organizing militias, etc.

[blake 3:17]

Fuck this alternative culture stuff, that really is the stuff of intra-Capitalist demands...i.e. reformism!

So the revolution will happen and magically everyone will be good to each other? But only if it is a real revolution?

[citizen of industry]

So the revolution will happen and magically everyone will be good to each other? But only if it is a real revolution?

I "liked" the post. There are few of us and limited resources. I can spend my time and the little money I have:

A) Build my union, fight corporations and better working conditions.
B) Join a party, sell/write socialist newspapers, study and agitate
*in the case of A and B, I can contact internationally with like groups
C) Make a cultural center
D) Make a funeral home
E) Make a recreation center

The theory is great, the "long march through the institutions." But there aren't any institutions, just government ones. It's intellectual bullshit styled to appeal to professors practicing "critical pedagogy" so they can think they are revolutionary without doing anything. A) automatically involves fighting. B) can, depending on the people and theory. C), D) and E)- you've got to be shitting me if you think i'm going to spend my time organizing a recreation center, signing out stinky jersyes and going on "proletarian hikes."

[Die Neue Zeit]

I "liked" the post. There are few of us and limited resources. I can spend my time and the little money I have:

A) Build my union, fight corporations and better working conditions.
B) Join a party, sell/write socialist newspapers, study and agitate
*in the case of A and B, I can contact internationally with like groups
C) Make a cultural center
D) Make a funeral home
E) Make a recreation center

The theory is great, the "long march through the institutions." But there aren't any institutions, just government ones. It's intellectual bullshit styled to appeal to professors practicing "critical pedagogy" so they can think they are revolutionary without doing anything. A) automatically involves fighting. B) can, depending on the people and theory. C), D) and E)- you've got to be shitting me if you think i'm going to spend my time organizing a recreation center, signing out stinky jersyes and going on "proletarian hikes."

Before I reply, I should say that I like your "long march through the institutions" remark, though I'd replace "the" with "workers."

There's not much "fight" in A, if all one is concentrating on is that. More importantly, it's all about mere labour disputes.

B is more accurately stated if the word "party" is put in quotes, because the newspaper obsession has been replaced by the Internet and potentially by sloganeering on cards the size of business cards. Most "parties" agitate and don't study much (and as I said the agitation methods are archaic).

Time and again even the best combination of "A" and "B" leads to failure, whether it is failure to take power or it is unmanageable chaos throughout society because of clueless honchos leading in the absence of appropriate institutions.

Re. your criticism of "proletarian hikes," apparently you haven't considered the activities of youth organizations. The only difference between what they do and what is being proposed is that workers of all ages engage in this activity.

[Grenzer]

I "liked" the post. There are few of us and limited resources. I can spend my time and the little money I have:

A) Build my union, fight corporations and better working conditions.
B) Join a party, sell/write socialist newspapers, study and agitate
*in the case of A and B, I can contact internationally with like groups
C) Make a cultural center
D) Make a funeral home
E) Make a recreation center

The theory is great, the "long march through the institutions." But there aren't any institutions, just government ones. It's intellectual bullshit styled to appeal to professors practicing "critical pedagogy" so they can think they are revolutionary without doing anything.

To be fair, DNZ isn't really talking about organizing on the individual level, he's talking about the organizational level. No worker is going to have the resources to do this kind of thing alone. In addition, I don't think he's proposing this as some kind of abstract, detached suggestion; but as an actual proposal that should be tried by organizations/parties at the present time.

Also, it does seem just a bit hypocritical that you are criticizing DNZ's attempt at bettering workers' conditions within capitalism while you are advocating traditional trade unions. I understand your point, but I just don't get what's so great about unions from your perspective. I thought we were supposed to be trying to destroy capitalism, not fight for better conditions within it, which is what you accuse DNZ of.

There are legitimate criticisms, but I think people still are failing to grasp the idea. The idea of alternative institutions is to provide a kind of parallel accommodation to some of the institutions that already exist in Capitalism, but are more workers friendly and can provide the basis for new structures after the revolution and and alternative that can be used at the present time to undermine its capitalist equivalent. I'm not even picking a side on this one, just pointing out some flaws in the skeptics' positions.

IF you want to attack DNZ's politics, a much better place to do it would be at the concept of the minimum demands in my opinion. I don't really think the conception of "alternative institutions" is inherently incompatible with any revolutionary doctrine, but I could be wrong. Alternative institutions aren't really tied to "demands" they are mutually exclusive. It's just that, an alternative. Anyhow, it might be interesting to see what kind of more substantial criticisms people can come up with.

And DNZ, what the fuck is up with the funeral home thing?

Edit: Ninja'd

[Die Neue Zeit]

I mentioned funeral homes, comrade, because the "Blanquists" of the Paris Commune organized them. I mean, they were the ultra-"vanguardists," right? Even they organized such, compared to today's left culture of mediocre agitation.

Of course, I considered immediate financial and other economic costs, so funeral homes are an alternative institutional avenue down the line, but still, funeral homes are funeral homes.



It's intellectual bullshit styled to appeal to professors practicing "critical pedagogy" so they can think they are revolutionary without doing anything.To be fair, DNZ isn't really talking about organizing on the individual level, he's talking about the organizational level. No worker is going to have the resources to do this kind of thing alone. In addition, I don't think he's proposing this as some kind of abstract, detached suggestion; but as an actual proposal that should be tried by organizations/parties at the present time.

Thanks for clearing that up.


There are legitimate criticisms, but I think people still are failing to grasp the idea. The idea of alternative institutions is to provide a kind of parallel accommodation to some of the institutions that already exist in Capitalism, but are more workers friendly and can provide the basis for new structures after the revolution and and alternative that can be used at the present time to undermine its capitalist equivalent. I'm not even picking a side on this one, just pointing out some flaws in the skeptics' positions.

IF you want to attack DNZ's politics, a much better place to do it would be at the concept of the minimum demands in my opinion. I don't really think the conception of "alternative institutions" is inherently incompatible with any revolutionary doctrine, but I could be wrong. Alternative institutions aren't really tied to "demands" they are mutually exclusive. It's just that, an alternative. Anyhow, it might be interesting to see what kind of more substantial criticisms people can come up with.

Comrade, I think you should really, really consider DeLeonism of a less parliamentary type. It critiques the concept of minimum demands yet at the same time is gung-ho on alternative institutions (and not just the "Socialist Industrial Union").

I think some posters here have read this and have a knee-jerk reaction of equating the Alternative Culture to the Utopian experiments of the 19th century and earlier.

[citizen of industry]

Re. your criticism of "proletarian hikes," apparently you haven't considered the activities of youth organizations. The only difference between what they do and what is being proposed is that workers of all ages engage in this activity.

The youth organizations I'm familiar with demonstrate in front of corporate HQ's during international labor disputes, and lead a mean anti-capitalist march. The youth is always up front on the bullhorn while the old farts march in back. That's why I like to march up front - more fun! But maybe you aren't referring to "proletarian" youth organizations?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I had Komsomol in mind, both in its revolutionary incarnation (inspired by the pre-WWI Young Socialists in Germany) and later Soviet incarnations.

[citizen of industry]

I had Komsomol in mind, both in its revolutionary incarnation and later Soviet incarnations.

So instead of "the activities of youth organizations," what you meant to say was "the activities of Komsomol circa 1920." Get your head out of the book once in awhile DNZ. Learn something from doing. Start your proletarian funeral home.

[Grenzer]

I think the issue that some people have such as Black Magick Hustla is that such institutions born out from the party are more instruments of the party, rather than the working class itself and are skeptical over the possibility of the degeneration or corruption of such organs. I could be mistaken, but I think this is the meaning behind critique that such institutions must be formed organically.


I mentioned funeral homes, comrade, because the "Blanquists" of the Paris Commune organized them. I mean, they were the ultra-"vanguardists," right? Even they organized such, compared to today's left culture of mediocre agitation.

Ok, I see.

I'm not expert on the Paris Commune. I only know that Marx cited them as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that they had a democratic form of government, and failed to expropriate the bourgeoisie.


I think some posters here have read this and have a knee-jerk reaction of equating the Alternative Culture to the Utopian experiments of the 19th century and earlier.

Which experiments were these? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the people with a knee-jerk reaction don't know what these are either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So instead of "the activities of youth organizations," what you meant to say was "the activities of Komsomol circa 1920." Get your head out of the book once in awhile DNZ.

That's only part of the picture. I said "revolutionary incarnation and later Soviet incarnations" for a reason. The later All-Union Leninist Communist Union of Youth merely made systematic the activities of the earlier Russian Communist Union of Youth.


Learn something from doing. Start your proletarian funeral home.

Read what Grenzer said above.


I think the issue that some people have such as Black Magick Hustla is that such institutions born out from the party are more instruments of the party, rather than the working class itself and are skeptical over the possibility of the degeneration or corruption of such organs. I could be mistaken, but I think this is the meaning behind critique that such institutions must be formed organically.

What those subscribing to political nihilism don't get are two things:

1) Real parties are real movements and vice versa.
2) A party-movement of the working class is already the worker-class-for-itself. The pre-WWI SPD and inter-war USPD were, for example, the German worker-class-for-itself, contrary to cries of "Substitutionism" or "Voluntarism."

[blake 3:17]

I mentioned funeral homes, comrade, because the "Blanquists" of the Paris Commune organized them. I mean, they were the ultra-"vanguardists," right? Even they organized such, compared to today's left culture of mediocre agitation.

A big problem with the far Left is that the orientation to college/university students cuts off a lot of other folks, time & culture wise.

I've lost a lot of people to death. An effective Left culture needs to be able to address the very basic existential concerns which rule a big part of our lives.

I don't necessarily agree with DNZ on the letter of the party-movement, but I do agree with much of the general spirit.

I have divided my political time between kinda standard Left protest/propaganda politics and counter hegemonic projects. The best experiences have been when those have fused. Some times that is something which a few individuals can act as bridges for. Sometimes it just happens.

The biggest projects of this typed I've worked on have been community radio, a volunteer run radical bookstore, and a left wing collectively owned campground. I've also lived in several communal houses. None of these things make up a strategy in and of themselves.

Defeating capitalism and imperialism and building a socialist society can't be based on ambulance chasing type hyper activism. I've done it, do it, and will do versions of it in the future, but it isn't the basis for a mass politic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The best experiences have been when those have fused. Some times that is something which a few individuals can act as bridges for. Sometimes it just happens.

The biggest projects of this typed I've worked on have been community radio, a volunteer run radical bookstore, and a left wing collectively owned campground. I've also lived in several communal houses. None of these things make up a strategy in and of themselves.

Defeating capitalism and imperialism and building a socialist society can't be based on ambulance chasing type hyper activism. I've done it, do it, and will do versions of it in the future, but it isn't the basis for a mass politic.

Indeed.

Comrade, what are your thoughts on a worker-organized employment agency? I know you're of the "precariat," but I think it does help with the proletarianization credentials vs. typical Student Left same-olds.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On a related note, below is a rare example of a non-profit employment agency. I must say, though, that its functions seem to be limited; they don't qualify employees like union halls, and they definitely don't function like temp agencies:

Despite Bad Economy, One Non-Profit Employment Agency Finds Good Jobs for Battered Women (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ludy-green-phd/post_841_b_715974.html)

(Excerpts)


As the economy worsens, job seekers are growing more frustrated with their inability to find decent work. This crisis is even more acute for a certain sector of society, victims of domestic violence. Second Chance Employment Services was founded specifically to help these women find good jobs, even in a bad economy.

[...]

It was from my frustration with the lack of employment services for battered women that I decided to found Second Chance Employment Services in 2002. I saw the résumés of too many women with gaps in their employment history get ignored by hiring professionals. I witnessed too many women coming out of domestic violence shelters return to their abusers because they couldn't find a job that would support themselves and their children.

Despite the daunting facts about abuse victims and their inability to find and maintain good jobs, Second Chance Employment Services has spent the past nine years overcoming the obstacles these women face. To date, we have secured over 700 career-track jobs with health benefits for victims of domestic violence, with salaries ranging from $32,000 to $98,000 per year.

But Second Chance, the nation's only no-fee employment placement agency dedicated to victims of domestic violence, still faces an uphill battle.

[...]

Second Chance was created to fill a much needed gap in victim's services -- finding victims an independent source of income so they can permanently escape abuse -- and it has been recognized time and again for the creative work we do. Second Chance was even given the prestigious Award for Innovation in Victims Services by the United Stated Department of Justice.

With the economy still dragging, and jobless numbers increasing, Second Chance provides a much needed service for the least vulnerable of all job-seekers, victims of domestic violence.

Even as we ourselves face a tightening budget and watch countless non-profits close their doors for a lack of funding, we'll continue to keep our doors open, so we can open the doors to meaningful employment for the women we serve.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And Boffy chimed in:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6263577133333272085&postID=8895070954182757438

I've already said in the past that I think its one idea that workers should develop such an organisation. Think of it like the Wobblies "One Big Union", or Owen's GNCFTU, or a Workers Monopoly Supplier of Labour. The idea would be to set Minimum Pay rates, and only supply Labour to employers through such an agency if they agreed to pay.

It has an ideological benefit, in that it would more openly be seen as a Company selling a product - Labour Power - like any other, and whilst bourgeois society has conditioned people to see that companies can choose not to sell unless consumers pay the price, this is never seen the same when it comes to workers selling Labour Power, and striking as a result.

The Co-op would have to have the resources to pay workers on its books who were not found employment, but this would also be an encouragement for this Co-op to be integrated with a wider Co-op sector, so that productive work WAS found for those workers.

But, of course, as I've said elsewhere, if such a Co-op Monopoly was established - and there are many obvious difficulties in trying to establish it arising from the atomisation of workers, and competition between them - the Capitalist State would inevitably intervene through the anti-Monopoly laws to insist it be broken up. That is why a political struggle would be needed, waged by a Workers Party.