Worker Ownership Vs. State Ownership.

[Stonewall]

Read the Topic: "Is Socialism Failing?" to see what I'd consider solutions to problems.

While I believe genuine socialism to be an ideal, most employees don’t have the knowledge, experience and expertise to manage a business. Most workers know nothing regarding business administration, financial accounting, investing in capital equipment, machines and so forth.

In addition, workers will oppose anything that goes against their interests. Had we had socialism, personal computers would never have been incorporated into offices, as many secretaries and office workers lost their jobs. Steel manufacturing wouldn’t be as automated as it is today, as had we been operating under worker’s socialism, the steel industry would resemble the 1950’s. As technology and innovation are a threat to a job position, workers would oppose it at every turn. Worker control of the means of production would be inefficient, technologically regressive and would lead to a stagnation of living conditions.

In addition, profit serves a purpose. Profit is the difference between production cost and price sold. Profit has an important purpose and that purpose is to increase production by building new factories, stores, offices and distribution centers, funding scientific research, investing in technology and innovation and in making production more efficient through automation and mechanization. Unfortunately, private businesses waste a significant portion of profits by distributing them among millionaire and billionaire shareholders that do nothing. That is why capitalism is oppressive, that reason in and of itself.

Worker’s ownership and control would eliminate profit, as all profit would be distributed among workers [it’s in their best interests]. However, by eliminating profit, it might be in the worker’s short term interest, but it’s against their long term interest.

However, state ownership of the means of production and the commanding heights, assuming it’s relatively independent of political and bureaucratic influence, would be capable of transforming the entire economy, creating one that’s more prosperous, humane, equitable, efficient and productive. Instead of hundreds of billions of dollars in “profit” being paid out to shareholders shifting money around on their etrade.com accounts, that capital could be used for scientific research, profit sharing bonuses for employees, investment in expansion and investment in automation and technology.

In addition, cooperation is more competitive than competition. One reason for corporate mergers is that they create “synergy” [merging two similar businesses in a similar industry eliminates redundancy, integrates operations, liberates information flow and knowledge and leads to a reduction in administration]. Nationalizing the commanding heights, or at least particular industries that are failing [like the automotive industry], would unleash unprecedented synergy and would allow for proper planning, expansion, innovation and efficiency. This is assuming political and bureaucratic influence is minimized and managers and administrators are hired strictly based on merit and knowledge.

For example, wage difference aside, Wal Mart is the most competitive retailer in the world. Wal Mart could afford to pay employees the same as Publix and Albertson’s and still offer lower prices. Sam’s could pay workers the same as Costco and allow employees to unionize, while still offering lower prices than Costco. By merging, integrating, sharing and spreading Wal Mart technique, technology, etc., the entire retail industry would be far more productive and efficient, saving consumers tens of billions of dollars and providing workers with a living wage.

However, a certain amount of competition is needed to provide a reason for accountability, continued innovation and continued improvement. If all industry were state controlled, it’d be like an AT&T monopoly, there’d be no competition and no need to innovate, no need to offer lower prices and no need to increase productivity and efficiency. That’s why the private sector should be allowed to compete with the public sector.

However, as there’s competition coming from around the world, domestic competition wouldn’t be needed in automotive, steel, energy, lumber, mining, agribusiness, food processing, glass, etc., so it’d be better to fully nationalize those industries. Boeing could also be a state owned enterprise, as it has to compete with Airbus.

[kurt]

Whoa!


While I believe genuine socialism to be an ideal, most employees don’t have the knowledge, experience and expertise to manage a business. Most workers know nothing regarding business administration, financial accounting, investing in capital equipment, machines and so forth.
You're right, and workers don't need to know anything about bourgeois economics. It's simply not necessary for post-capitalist society.


In addition, workers will oppose anything that goes against their interests. Had we had socialism, personal computers would never have been incorporated into offices, as many secretaries and office workers lost their jobs. Steel manufacturing wouldn’t be as automated as it is today, as had we been operating under worker’s socialism, the steel industry would resemble the 1950’s. As technology and innovation are a threat to a job position, workers would oppose it at every turn. Worker control of the means of production would be inefficient, technologically regressive and would lead to a stagnation of living conditions.
This is a complete speculation which reeks of bourgeois mentality. Those "stupid" workers can't get it right themselves. We "need" buisness minded people to "guide" us. In post-capitalist society, workers wouldn't be afraid of losing their jobs to technology. They could simply retrain themselves, and have an easier time in their new place of work, because technology has eased the load. They need not worry about not being able to "afford" food, clothing, and pay the rent. In capitalism they don't want to lose their job because they need to pay their bills.


In addition, profit serves a purpose. Profit is the difference between production cost and price sold. Profit has an important purpose and that purpose is to increase production by building new factories, stores, offices and distribution centers, funding scientific research, investing in technology and innovation and in making production more efficient through automation and mechanization.
Profit's only purpose in your perverse idea of "market socialism" would be to restore capitalism. If worker's had to worry about maximizing profit, they would be inclined to cheat, steal, and do anything they could to do so. After all, it would be in their material interests to do so. Successful collectives, or factories that maximized their profit would eventually gain such a material surplus that before long we'd have a new capitalist class.


Worker’s ownership and control would eliminate profit, as all profit would be distributed among workers [it’s in their best interests]. However, by eliminating profit, it might be in the worker’s short term interest, but it’s against their long term interest.
By giving each worker at a particular collective an equal cut of the profit, you have not eliminated it. You've simply re-distributed it.

[Stonewall]

If money is still to exist, profit will have to be made, if not, how else is there going to be capital for building new factories, offices, stores, distribution centers and mines? How else is there going to be capital for expanding existing factories, stores, offices, mines, distribution centers, etc.? How else is there going to be capital for scientific research and technological innovation? How else is there going to be capital for purchasing machines, computers, etc.? These things are all made possible by profit, the difference between production cost and selling price. As long as money exists, there’s a need for “profit”. It’s how the profit is used that makes the difference. Instead of half of profits going to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, all profits could be used for expanding production and improving efficiency and productivity.

If all the profit wasted on dividends and stock buybacks were used for expanding production, making production more productive and efficient and scientific research, everyone would be employed in a full time job and technologically, we’d be light years ahead of where we are. Unfortunately, at any given time in modern history, between 50% and 60% of earnings were distributed among shareholders.

As for complete speculation, you’re wrong. Workers would do what was in their best interest, just as capitalists do what’s in their best interest and shareholders do what’s in their best interest. Workers would oppose any kind of innovation and technology that threaten their existing job. That’s why the Postal Union & Post Office workers opposed automated mail sorting. Sorting is done by hand and automating it would eliminate the need for those employees. However, automating it would free up labor for other more productive endeavors and it would make stamps cheaper, so it’d really be in the best interest of the working class, just not those workers affected.

As long as money is around, there’s a need for Business Administration, Financial Accounting, Resource Allocation, Managers, etc., read your Marx. Communism is the final stage, socialism, which comes after capitalism, is a money based system. In fact, the Communist Manifesto calls for many petty bourgeois reforms, such as a progressive income tax, ending child labor, etc. In fact, straight from the Manifesto;

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

If money didn’t exist under socialism, Marx wouldn’t have called for a graduated income tax and “free” education. For production to be expanded and extended, profit has to be made for investment. Also note that Marx said “STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION”, not worker’s ownership. So, it would seem I know more “Marx” than many Marxists-Leninists-Trotskyites.

Kurt, the process is Capitalism to Socialism, then to Communism. It’s not Capitalism to Communism. Socialism is state ownership and Communism is worker ownership. You seem to ignore the entire stage in between the two.

Also, if state ownership is “reformist”, Marx must have been a reformist. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:10 AM
If money is still to exist, profit will have to be made...




Which is why we need to abolish money and the wage system.




Also, if state ownership is “reformist”, Marx must have been a reformist. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.

I agree, Marx, like all statists, was a reformist. :D Of course, I'm not a Marxist and I don't like the whole "cake" anyway. Like a birthday cake with coconut, I'll pick out and eat the parts I like and leave the stuff I don't like behind...

[JKP]

Did you guys know that in Argentina, the workers have taken over hundreds of workplaces and are running them themselves?


There's a documentary about it here.
http://www.nfb.ca/webextension/thetake/

And here's an article:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=26&ItemID=9042 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=26&ItemID=9042)

This October I spent a week in Buenos Aires, Argentina learning about Argentina's workers movement to recuperate factories.

During the recent corporate globalization inspired economic downturns in Argentina, workers confronted disaster when their capitalist workplaces often went bankrupt. To preserve income and avoid possible starvation, workers in failing plants in certain cases decided to recuperate their workplaces back into viable businesses despite the capitalist owner being unable to make a go of it.

Ignoring state opposition, aggressive competition, old equipment, and failed demand, workers in these instances took over roughly a hundred and ninety plants over the past five years. In each occupied workplace, we were told during our visit, not only did the capitalist owner leave the operation, so too did prior professional and conceptual employees including managers and engineers. Where the privileged employees felt their prospects would be better served if they looked elsewhere rather than clinging to a failing operation, the unskilled and rote workers had to recuperate their failing workplace or suffer unemployment. Thus to date the Argentine occupations, we were told by a highly conscious organizer in the movement, "have not been acts of ideology or followed a revolutionary plan." They have been, instead, "acts of desperate self defense." Yet most interestingly, provocatively, and inspirationally, after taking over a company, which usually required a struggle of many months to overcome political resistance from the state, and after then running the plants for a time, the recuperation projects have become increasingly visionary.

In addition to hearing about the overall situation of the "workplace recuperation movement," I visited an occupied hotel, ice cream plant, glass factory, and slaughterhouse, all recuperated by their prior manual, obedient, unskilled, and in most cases barely educated and sometimes even illiterate work force.

In each of these plants, ranging in size from about 80 to about 500 employees, as in all other plants recuperated by worker actions, the workers quickly established a workers' council as the decision making body. In such councils, each worker gets one vote and majority rule establishes overarching workplace policies. Workers call the process self management and each plant decides its own norms and relations.

Almost immediately, however, in most of the occupied plants, "workers leveled all salaries to the same hourly pay rate." Workplaces that varied from this egalitarianism tended to allow "slightly higher wages for those involved in the workplace longer and somewhat lower wages for those just coming aboard." Also, more recently, a discussion has begun about incentives. What type should they use, in what mix? Some workplaces have opted to pay more for conceptual and managerial labor. Others have paid more for more demanding and debilitating work. Most have stuck with equal pay rates for all, however. All have begun wondering, how can they best have equity "but also have incentives to induce hard work?" Even where more onerous work wasn't paid more, which was most places, we were told there was much concern that people now stuck in rote positions should "have opportunities and be educated to do more interesting work" and that there was also a reduced tendency to refuse to share knowledge because everyone saw general advance as being in everyone's interest, not just in an owner's interest.

In all the recuperated plants, although we were told certain tasks having to do with specifically capitalist control have proved "no longer relevant," we were also told "many other organizational, managerial, and otherwise empowering tasks previously done by professionals have needed to be accomplished by the remaining workers." A subset of the workers have thus taken up doing new tasks, including sometimes having to become literate as a prerequisite.

When I asked organizers whether there was a division of labor in workplaces like that found in capitalist corporations, with about a fifth of employees doing mostly or even only empowering and more pleasant labor, and with four fifths doing mostly or even only rote, repetitive, and more onerous labor, including the former dominating the latter by setting agendas, dominating debate, and otherwise establishing its will, the answers I got tended to agree that this difference between more empowered and more rote workers existed and then to talk about the need to induce workers to participate more not only in wage discussions, but in other discussions too. The answers didn't at first acknowledge that there was a structural impediment, not just old habits, interfering with participation. But then pressed further the organizers would agree that old divisions of labor countered egalitarian impulses though the only solution they offered was for more manual workers to learn to do managerial jobs. They failed to note or acknowledge that there wouldn't be enough such jobs to go around unless there was a change in the component tasks of jobs so that everyone had a share of empowering tasks.

In the ice cream plant we visited, for example, there were only two women workers. One was the treasurer. Asked what her class was, she at first didn't understand the query wondering what we could possibly have in mind, but then realized what we meant and said "of course, I am a worker like all others." To her this was obvious. My question was as ridiculous as if I had asked what gender she was. Beyond feeling like all the rest of the workers, being paid like all the rest of the workers, and having one vote like all the rest of the workers, it turned out, supporting her incredulity, that this treasurer also spent only half of each day dealing with finances and records. The other half of each day she worked on the assembly line. However, her situation was not typical. Questions repeatedly revealed that retaining some old work while doing some new more empowering tasks wasn't the only or even always the most typical job pattern for getting managerial assignments done. Rather, there were often people who did more conceptual tasks as their whole job without spending any time in assembly or other rote work. More, most people in the recuperated factories continued to do only their old jobs without taking up any new empowering aspects. Most people, in other words, still spent hour upon hour doing deadening repetitive labor, though now in a very new context.

Asked if she earned different pay than other workers, the treasurer/assembler said "no, I have the same pay rate, why would my pay be any different?" In further discussion this woman and others in the ice cream plant - and in other plants we visited later too - told us that "while workers aren't docked for laziness or rewarded greater pay for greater effort, anyone who slacks off comes before the whole council and is set right." Likewise, we were also told that under the auspices of the whole council there had been firings for "alcoholism, violence, etc." In short, pretty much universally in the occupied plants workers had to measure up to their workmates' satisfaction, which in practice seemed to mean that people had to do their jobs competently and contributing effort commensurate to their capacities as these were understood by the whole council. In short, with workers in charge, you either carried your weight, in accord with your capacities, or you heard about it.

When asked whether she was somehow different than other workers or whether other workers could also do the financial work she was proud of handling, the treasurer said "sure others could do it." Everyone else we asked also said "yes, of course everyone could do financial tasks, or in any case everyone could do some tasks of a conceptual sort." But when asked why only she and two other people in her workplace did treasury work while most workers in her ice cream factory still did only rote and repetitive tasks, neither the treasurer nor any other worker we queried thought this overall division was a failing, at least before being asked about it. "We are all workers," they said. "We are all friends. "We all share the joys and benefits of our shared effort." As long as they worked hard, gave their all, and had equal income, they didn't seem to feel it made a major difference who did what work. But it is important to remember, while we talked to workers, it was without exception workers who were doing the more empowering jobs.

In longer interviews, activists involved in the movement who were carefully watching its evolution all agreed that a persistent division between more and less empowered workers was problematic and something to overcome lest it undo other gains they believed in, but they offered no specific plan for how to accomplish such a change and generally indicated that a prior concern was being successful and keeping jobs.

In the slaughter house we visited, beyond the subset of workers who did empowered labor we were told that the full council of just under 500 workers elected an eight person board serving for daily administration. We met with these eight employees who were all former rote/repetitive workers but were now doing conceptual tasks and also, beyond that, were voted to the board by the whole assembly. Their salary was unchanged by becoming board members, they reported to us. It had also been unchanged by their earlier graduating to doing more conceptual and empowering work.

We watched, squeamishly, the slaughter house assembly line dismantling cows, with each worker on the line doing a single cutting motion over and over, the sum total being the cutting of the cow into parts for later treatment. The workers council had changed workplace conditions to the point where such assembly workers got much time off, spread through the day, to alleviate the stress and strain of their constant repetitive motions. The council hadn't, however, redesigned the slaughter house technology to change the actual tasks to be less repetitive and debilitating, nor had it even thought about doing so, as best we could determine from our discussions.

The glass factory we visited also had equal wages for all and a governing council of employees who saw themselves as workers even while doing entirely managerial and planning functions. We watched rote workers tending furnaces and carrying hot glass from station to station and learned that they got a half hour off for each hour spent scurrying in the heat to match the speed of assembly. This was a big change from the capitalist past, as was, of course, the equalization of all pay rates and presence of previously rote workers doing conceptual and empowered tasks. When I asked in this glass factory whether the men and women carrying the glass and tending the furnaces could do more conceptual and less onerous work for a part of their day, everyone said "of course they could, every effort was made to permit people to change jobs, to learn new skills, etc.," especially "since we now know everyone is capable of it." And it was clearly true that this was their intent, at leastup to the limits of the roles imposed by the existing division of labor.

Sitting with board members of the glass factory, I asked what would happen if they went to the whole council and said they wanted higher pay due to their carrying heavy responsibilities or having more knowledge. They laughed and said "we would be removed from our positions, and back on the line." I said, "okay, but what if you do more conceptual and skilled work for the next five years, might you not then get higher wages for being more critical to daily operations, more knowledgeable, providing more leadership at council meetings, etc.?" The council president laughed and said, "well, yes, that might happen and it would be nice wouldn't it." In longer interviews we discovered that indeed at council meetings the workers who were doing the empowering tasks, those who were the treasurers, etc., did set the agendas, chair the sessions, and provide nearly all critical information - over and over.

Perhaps the most surprising and in some ways most troubling interchange was with the elected president of the glass factory and a couple of other workers who were present as well. I asked whether they thought workers in other more successful plants that were still under the auspices of owners would emulate the recuperation movement's accomplishments and seek to take over and run their profitable plants too, seeking to self manage them and to thereby make them dignified as well as to share their rewards equitably. With no hesitation at all, the workers said no.

They explained that workers in successful plants would fear that to occupy and run their workplaces would diminish rather than improve their conditions, in addition to fearing being fired or repressed if their uprising failed. They said that prior to actually fighting for and winning control over their work lives they didn't realize what a difference it would make to their fulfillment to not have profit-seeking bosses. They were quite adamant that their current commitment to the new way of operating depended for its origin and its power on their having had to fight for the plant and then to run it in order to survive, but that their commitment didn't exist before that.

I asked, "if I tomorrow opened a plant down the road and offered to hire you to work there at twice the pay you are getting here, but also told you that you would have to work for me and my managers, would you do it?" They laughed and told me "you would need to shoot us, literally, to get us to leave our self managed glass plant to work at a capitalist plant of any kind, at any pay rate." So "why couldn't they convey that lesson to their friends working elsewhere and thereby motivate them to seek change too," I asked. They shrugged. They didn't see it as likely. Worse, it wasn't on their agenda.

Overall, the most striking and inspiring thing about these factories was the workers' spirit. These harsh workplaces, having collapsed under capitalist tutelage and often utilizing outdated or failed technologies were recuperated into success, and the workers were proud of that achievement. The new success that the former owner couldn't attain clearly rested in part on diminishing costs by eliminating inflated managerial and professional salaries, but no doubt also on increased worker effort due to workers no longer resisting control from above but, instead, feeling the workplace was theirs. Workers were clearly enjoying not only good wages but improved conditions and status, and, above all, they were operating with a degree of dignity and pride as well as with a level of mutual concern and solidarity that to my experience is simply unknown in capitalist workplaces. This spiritual gain was palpable everywhere we visited. But so, regrettably, was the disinclination to try for more.

Among the plants, we heard that there were even collective funds established to aid newly recuperated firm's initial efforts by transferring start up aid from more established firms to initially struggling ones. We were told there was also the beginning of attention to trying to transact with one another beyond market competition, guided instead by social values and solidarity. But when queried further, workers in the occupied plants also reported that whether they liked it or not they had to compete for market share. At first this was horribly difficult, they said, as other firms buying their intermediate goods shied away. But in time they were able to "keep costs down, provide quality output, and go out and get customers." It was clear in discussing all this, however, that market competition had powerful influence over the scope of decisions the self managing could undertake. Workers councils couldn't initiate too much improvement in conditions lest other firms, with managers to inflict speed-up and to cut costs, out compete them. This deadening effect of markets hadn't yet reversed the workers' humane inclinations, but it was clearly a brake on their enlargement and was already slowing down humane innovations.

I don't see how anyone, no matter what prior expectations and orderings they might bring with them, could look at these Argentine occupied plants and deny the chief lessons they teach. Capitalist society horribly under-utilizes most people by providing them only rote and repetitive labor and stifling their confidence, creativity, and initiative until they feel that repetitive obedient labor is all they should or could be doing. This is called education, but it is really degradation.

Argentina's recuperated factory movement shows that in a matter of months even after being slogged and flailed their whole lives through, even when they are barely literate or are illiterate, working people can take up tasks supposedly beyond their ken and accomplish them honorably and effectively. Likewise, Argentina's occupied factories display the powerful spontaneous desire of people who haven't been socialized into elitist mindsets to earn equitably and to apportion power fairly rather than dominate or be dominated.

Beyond those key lessons, however, different people will likely see different things when viewing Argentina's occupied factories. I saw, for example, that without changing the division of labor so that all workers equally share conceptual and empowering tasks, even the profoundly egalitarian and participatory impulses of these factories would tend to decline and be overcome. If a relatively few employees, even originating from the shop floor of each workplace, even if they were freely voted to their higher positions, rose to do all the empowering tasks while the rest of the workers stayed mired in only repetitive tasks as earlier, in time the few doing empowered labor would dominate council discussions, set meeting agendas, impose their will regarding policies, and finally reward themselves greater salaries and benefits as well.

In short, despite almost universal egalitarian intentions, employees set off from other workers by a division of labor that gives a few more status, knowledge, skill, and confidence than those left doing only rote labor would become what they had sincerely sought to eliminate, a new dominant class, this time, however, not of owners, but of empowered employees or what I call coordinators, in any event again ruling workers from above.

Argentina's defensive workplace projects, growing in number each month, each start with no owners and no "coordinator class" of empowered workers. They also start with a tremendous desire not only to succeed as businesses but to share the benefits of success equitably via equitable pay rates, improved conditions, democratic decision making, and recallable officials. But, if the old corporate division of labor persists in these recuperated plants, it seemed clear that all the desirable innovations would in time depend on good will and humane aspirations that would continually buck up against and be relentlessly eroded by the structural difference between the few doing empowering work and the many doing only rote work. On the other hand, it also seemed evident that if the workers became as self conscious about everyone doing a fair share of the empowering labor as they were about equalizing pay rates, then their aspirations for classlessness would not only reside in their hearts, but would also be structurally propelled by a new division of labor which would facilitate and advance rather than erode their gains.

The problem of the market and broader economy would still remain, even in that more hopeful case, however. Understanding the market's debilitating implications for each workplace and seeing what kinds of changes would reduce those ills and in time finally auger in new allocation relations in place of markets would also need to become a priority for a movement that would transcend present relations. Beginning to counter market pressures would also be key to reversing what seemed to us the least admirable feature of the Argentine movement, its insularity in each firm and the workers' seeming lack of desire to address non recuperated firms by demanding changes in them too.

Finally, it was disturbing to hear workers describe how if they had been employed in successful plants they would not have sought to run them as they would in that case not have been pushed by necessity and would also not have understood the debits of their position and the possibilities of liberation. It sounded like evidence someone might offer on behalf of vanguard organizing by an enlightened few who would drag along the unenlightened many even against their lack of awareness and inclination. The only rebuttal, I think, would be not to deny the facts offered by the workers, but to argue that we should simply reject the elitist "solution" as being contrary to our broader goals and require, instead, that movements figure out how to inspire and support action in successful firms as well as in collapsed ones, and how to do this not via a top down process that would lead in ways preserving class division, but by a sideways growth in ways generating activism consistent with classlessness. We have to not only beat capitalists, we have to attain for whole economies true and full self management.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:10 AM
As long as money is around, there’s a need for Business Administration, Financial Accounting, Resource Allocation, Managers, etc., read your Marx. Communism is the final stage, socialism, which comes after capitalism, is a money based system. In fact, the Communist Manifesto calls for many petty bourgeois reforms, such as a progressive income tax, ending child labor, etc. In fact, straight from the Manifesto;

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

If money didn’t exist under socialism, Marx wouldn’t have called for a graduated income tax and “free” education. For production to be expanded and extended, profit has to be made for investment. Also note that Marx said “STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION”, not worker’s ownership. So, it would seem I know more “Marx” than many Marxists-Leninists-Trotskyites.

Kurt, the process is Capitalism to Socialism, then to Communism. It’s not Capitalism to Communism. Socialism is state ownership and Communism is worker ownership. You seem to ignore the entire stage in between the two.

Also, if state ownership is “reformist”, Marx must have been a reformist. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.
The demands in the Manifesto were not meant to initiate a "socialist" society. Rather, they were meant to begin the transition out of capitalism, which Marx later coined the proletarian dictatorship (not "socialism", as you state). Further, these demands were raised in the context of an impending democratic revolution in Germany, and were later regarded as "obsolete" by both Marx and Engels. Why? Because the specific material conditions that led to the formulation of those 10 demands had already passed into history.

Generally speaking, you began this thread under a false premise. You present the phrase "Worker Ownership Vs. State Ownership" as the only two options. The problem with this dichotomy, however, is that it has nothing to do with communism as a political movement or as a political platform. If the history of the 20th century has provided any lesson, it is that "state ownership" is no more "communist" than credit unions. In fact, "nationalization" in and of itself is often used as a reactionary demand, in the face of a revolutionary proletariat.

Moreover, what is "worker ownership"? Is this the old utopian concept of the "cooperative commonwealth"? Or is it a rehashing of the Employee Stock Ownership Programs that were popular in the latter-half of the 20th century.

Neither of these options are of any value to a proletarian communist movement. We do not wish to transfer private property from one set of hands into another. Rather, we wish to abolish private property. This act can only be done in conjunction with workers' control of that no-longer-private property. Any intermediary step runs the risk of handing power to one of the exploiting classes -- most likely the petty bourgeoisie -- or a section thereof.

Note that when Marx talked of the "centralization" of "all instruments of production in the hands of the State", the "State" was defined as "the proletariat organized as the ruling class". This is key. Marx is not talking about state institutions in the bourgeois sense, but an organized and self-acting proletariat administering the instruments of production through its own formations -- workers' assemblies and councils, workplace committees, etc. -- and defending them by their own means -- workers' militia. This is a far cry from the kind of "state ownership" you claim Marx is advocating, which, as you point out, is "reformist".

Miles

[SonofRage]

well said Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:46 AM
well said Miles
Not bad for the supporter of a "reformist", eh? ;) :D

Miles

[bolshevik butcher]

I think Miles has it all covered. And to be honest does it really matter to us today, on the issue of workers control what marx said about it over 150yrs ago?

I think that rosa luxemburg in germany in the early 20th century is actaully mutch more relevant to most people on the board as she lived in a fully flkedged capitalist society.

[sovietsniper]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 18 2005, 05:23 PM
To be honest does it really matter to us today, on the issue of workers control what marx said about it over 150yrs ago?

I think that rosa luxemburg in germany in the early 20th century is actaully mutch more relevant to most people on the board as she lived in a fully flkedged capitalist society.
Very true comrade, and her teachings are becoming even more irrelevent with the rising of coppritism

[Red Powers]

I'll just add that profit (surplus value) is not the selling price - cost of production, it is - the value a worker creates - the wage. Beyond that I find this post a particularly transparent rationale for a "new class" of profit managers because workers are just incapable of running things. :lol:

[Stonewall]

Well, both are same, as labor is the main component in cost of production [even the machine used to automate production involved labor in making that machine and labor in mining the natural resources used to make the machine]. So it's cost minus selling price. It's the same thing.

Also notice in the article posted about Argentina, the workers didn't utilize and implement new techniques and machines that would make the enterprise more productive, efficient and innovative. Also note that the article read that the workers didn’t have any such plan to utilize new techniques and technologies. The article proves my point, workers will work in their own interest, which means productivity would stagnate and living standards would gradually level-off, or even deteriorate. So Kurt, point made, it’s not speculation, the Argentine slaughterhouse workers proved my point valid.

Also, Marx supported state ownership of the means of production and that’s exactly what socialism is, state ownership. Communism is worker’s ownership, there’s a difference. Yes, the state, according to Marx, would need to be a worker’s state.

[Stonewall]

"The council hadn't, however, redesigned the slaughter house technology to change the actual tasks to be less repetitive and debilitating, nor had it even thought about doing so, as best we could determine from our discussions."

There's what I'm talking about. Workers would oppose anything that was against their immediate interests, even if in the long run it was in their best interest.

[JKP]

You have to keep mind that the collectives in Argentina are still competing with each other on the market; that is one reason why improvments aren't being introduced.

One thing that the article didn't mention, is that the quality and quantity of goods are greatly higher than previously under capitalism.


Also you're taking quotes out of context.

[Stonewall]

What data do you have to back up the claim “quality and quantity are greater than under capitalism”? Source cited?

In addition, competition forces improvements, so that’s not an excuse.

[JKP]

For the first point, I used the "the take" as a source"; I linked to it in my first post.

As for your second point re-read the article. The free-market forces allocation of resources to be wasted on competition; the collectives are seeking to increase cooperation but the market is hampering that.

"Among the plants, we heard that there were even collective funds established to aid newly recuperated firm's initial efforts by transferring start up aid from more established firms to initially struggling ones. We were told there was also the beginning of attention to trying to transact with one another beyond market competition, guided instead by social values and solidarity. But when queried further, workers in the occupied plants also reported that whether they liked it or not they had to compete for market share. At first this was horribly difficult, they said, as other firms buying their intermediate goods shied away. But in time they were able to "keep costs down, provide quality output, and go out and get customers." It was clear in discussing all this, however, that market competition had powerful influence over the scope of decisions the self managing could undertake. Workers councils couldn't initiate too much improvement in conditions lest other firms, with managers to inflict speed-up and to cut costs, out compete them. This deadening effect of markets hadn't yet reversed the workers' humane inclinations, but it was clearly a brake on their enlargement and was already slowing down humane innovations."

[Stonewall]

No, competition would require purchasing new machinery and technology in order to effectively compete. Competition is the primary cause of automation.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 08:47 PM
No, competition would require purchasing new machinery and technology in order to effectively compete. Competition is the primary cause of automation.
That doesn't make any sense.

Do you even know?

[Red Powers]

From Stonewall

So it's cost minus selling price. It's the same thing.

Well, it might amount to the same value but your way has the profit arising from circulation of commodities, the Marxist way has it arising from production and particularly from the workers' labor power. In a classless society this would make no difference but under conditions of exploitation and class society it's a crucial difference. Your way hides the exploitation.

[DisIllusion]

Compeitition and greed are the driving forces in capitalism.

Beat your compeitition and crush them into the ground. All while cutting corners wherever they can. If we let capitalism run even more amok than it is now, there would still be a slave trade, because they "expand our profits".

Capitalism promotes Fascism.

[Stonewall]

That doesn’t make sense? Do you even know? OMFG.

If Ford develops a new technology that makes assembly line work 50% more productive than General Motors, General Motors has to match that to remain competitive. Competition forces automation and mechanization.

[bolshevik butcher]

Just thought i'd point out that the worker occupied factories in latin america recently had a summit in venezuela in which they agreed to beign to end the proccess fo competing with each other and for further cooperation. They are trying to end the system of worke agianst worker, as it seems foolish.

[Lamanov]

Miles pretty much said it all. Us "reformists" really know our shit, don't we? ;)


Originally posted by Stonewall
Also, Marx supported state ownership of the means of production and that’s exactly what socialism is, state ownership. Communism is worker’s ownership, there’s a difference. Yes, the state, according to Marx, would need to be a worker’s state.

Actually, Marx advocated for abolition of private properity. The fact that you mix up scientific socialism a la Karl Marx and state-socialism a la Enver Hoxa is some serious basics missunderstanding.

Communism is not a "workers' ownership". There is no ownership at all in communist society, because it's based on classless productional relations and the expropriation of private properity over the means of production, where controll, distribution and management are shifted from individuals to the working collective.

In Marx's view, the revolutionary working collective organizes itslef in the form of the state in it's external form, for the suppression of the reactionary resistance. This "state" is not the state in the bourgeois form. In its internal form it organizes itself in the direct-democratic association of workers' collectives.

It's really getting old when people use the Obsolete Manifesto (Communist Manifesto) to explain how Marx advocated "reform", "state" or "authority". Read what Miles wrote, again.

In our modern days the idea of Socialism itslef is becoming more and more obsolete as we are developing means of production to the point where revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism in its material form becomes less and less recquired, especially when we must understand that the basis (classless productional relations and collective managment) for construction of communist society must not be laid in the "later" stage, but with the "initial step".

[JKP]

I recognize the need to upgrade the means of production, but what you are arguing for is more competition to facilitate that goal. What we as anarchists argue for is the opposite, namely mutual cooperation. Quite frankly, the free market is incompatible with this ideal; we need different systems to support that.

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree, in order to achieve socialism we need to look t cooperation, as the workers of the occupied factories in latin america are doing now. As the workers did in the paris commune, as the workers did when tehy formed the soviets in russia.

[Comrade-Z]

The Argentina factory recuperation movement is truly an exciting situation. This is real workplace democracy--factory councils, increased equality, workers earning the full product of their labor. It provides perhaps the best example of what we should be aiming for in the short term. Hopefully developments like this will finally put the "workers, by themselves, can only attain trade-union consciousness" argument to its death. I would have thought that the workers' councils of the Paris Commune, the soviets (councils) of the Russian Revolution, the CNT-FAI programme during the Spanish Civil War, etc. would have done this already, but I guess not. It seems to me, all it takes is some activists to implant the idea of workers' control in the minds of the workers and the emergence of a Situation in which the workers can put the ideas to the test and bring about workers' control.

The arguments that the workers need to be controlled by a more intelligent authority are flawed. Even IF workers didn't recognize that setting aside some of the collective earnings for future investment was a good idea, there is the great possibility that humble activists with more economic, historical, and business knowledge than the workers could persuade the workers to set aside some earnings for future investment THROUGH REASONED ARGUMENTS, not by showing them the barrel of a gun and forcing State control on them.

I must also add that, even IF it were in the best interests of the workers to tell them how to run things (because they are supposedly too stupid/short-sighted to manage things themselves), it would still not be a good idea to try to impose authority over the workers and implement policies contrary to their wishes. That will simply lead to strikes, protestations, and even armed uprisings on the part of the workers against the authority imposing its will, making it necessary for the State to adopt totalitarian measures in order to keep control over the workers and supposedly implement policies that are in best interests of those same workers. In fact, this is exactly what happened in many parts of Russia after the Bolsheviks seized power, the most notable example of which was the Kronstadt uprising.

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/revhist17/brovkin2large.pdf

Need we revisit the demands of the Kronstadt workers and sailors?

(1) In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and the peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, the preelection campaign to have full freedom of agitation among the workers and peasants;
(2) To establish freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, for Anarchists and left Socialist parties;
(3) To secure freedom of assembly for labour unions and peasant organizations;
(4) To call a non-partisan Conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt, and of Petrograd Province, no later than March 10, 1921;
(5) To liberate all political prisoners of Socialist parties, as well as all workers, peasants, soldiers, and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labour and peasant movements;
(6) To elect a Commission to review the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps;
(7) To abolish all politotdeli [political bureaus] because no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the Government for such purposes, Instead there should be established educational and cultural commissions, locally elected and financed by the Government.
(8) To abolish immediately all zagryaditelniye otryadi; [armed units that requisitioned grain from the peasants]
(9) To equalize the rations of all who work, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health;
(10) To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the Army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in mills and factories. Should such guards or military detachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the Army from the ranks, and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers;
(11) To give the peasants full freedom of action in regard to their land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means; that is, without employing hired labour;
(12) To request all branches of the Army, as well as our comrades the military kursanti, to concur in our resolutions; (13) To demand that the press give the fullest publicity to our resolutions;
(14) To appoint a Travelling Commission of Control;
(15) To permit free kustarnoye [individual, small-scale] production by one's own efforts.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...onment/ch27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/ch27.htm)

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Nov 18 2005, 01:09 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Nov 18 2005, 01:09 PM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 11:46 AM
well said Miles
Not bad for the supporter of a "reformist", eh? ;) :D

Miles [/b]
Indeed. Perhaps your Marx wasn't' a reformist...you have a difference conception of "the State" than most Marxists I encounter.

If we are talking about Anarcho-Communists say things should work, "workers' assemblies and councils, workplace committees, etc." and a "workers' militia" then I would argue that this wouldn't really be a State. The term State is problematic and if we're talking about the same thing I think you shouldn't call it a State...

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Nov 20 2005, 10:52 AM--> (SonofRage @ Nov 20 2005, 10:52 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:09 PM

[email protected] 18 2005, 11:46 AM
well said Miles
Not bad for the supporter of a "reformist", eh? ;) :D

Miles
Indeed. Perhaps your Marx wasn't' a reformist...you have a difference conception of "the State" than most Marxists I encounter.

If we are talking about Anarcho-Communists say things should work, "workers' assemblies and councils, workplace committees, etc." and a "workers' militia" then I would argue that this wouldn't really be a State. The term State is problematic and if we're talking about the same thing I think you shouldn't call it a State... [/b]
Any self-described "Marxist" who does not talk about the transition from capitalism to communism in such terms is no "Marxist", but a bureaucratic (petty-bourgeois) socialist in disguise -- and that goes for those who may also hide behind the label of a "revolutionary democratic socialist", "Trotskyist", etc.

Miles

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, the state invisaged by most marxists is not really a state in the typical sense. Usually a state is used by the few to supress teh many, a state run udner socialist prinicple would be used by the many to supress the counter revolution of the few. So it's really a semi-state, and it has to have a strcuture by inwhich it should be rotting away, as the counter reovlution is defeated and a classless socety created.

[Ouroboros]

Worker ownership would mean that few workers who work in fully authomatized high-tech factory would own something worth billions of dollars, and some other workers would own only their shovel.

Great argument, isn't it?

Production has sense only in the relations to needs of whole society, hence whole society should make all economical decision, of course through some system ...

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:18 PM
Worker ownership would mean that few workers who work in fully authomatized high-tech factory would own something worth billions of dollars, and some other workers would own only their shovel.

Great argument, isn't it?

Production has sense only in the relations to needs of whole society, hence whole society should make all economical decision, of course through some system ...
Such problems of inequality will persist as long as the free market mechanism remains, although the inequality resulting from worker-controlled collectives will be magnitudes less compared to the previous capitalist-owned businesses. The working class will have to work these problems out. If some workers feel that they aren't getting their fair share, they should go on strike and appeal to others in their position. Perhaps they will need to protest. Perhaps they will need to engage in activism convincing the more wealthy workers that it is their best interest that society have the greatest social harmony, which will only be achieved with the greatest equality. Perhaps it will require militant action on the part of the less wealthy workers against the more wealthy workers.

However, all this inequality points to is the need to abolish free market mechanisms and have the worker-owned collectives freely share their products with the rest of society. Having the workers instead of the State control the collectives isn't the issue here. And if you say that a centralized authority such as the State can enforce equality, then you're neglecting to consider that the State will find it difficult to be impartial, or to handle the redistribution efficiently and maintain a "human face" while doing so. Only if there is the possibility of instant recall of all government officials and an armed working class to keep the State in line and adhering to the wishes of the working class will the State have any possibility of effectively and fairly redistributing wealth fairly. But then such a State wouldn't really be a State at all in the usual sense. It would be the equivalent of one huge federation of anarchist workers' councils. It's the same thing. The dictatorship of the proletariat. I have a feeling that Marx's DOP and workers' State and the big federation of workers' councils that anarchists envision are practically the same thing.