Posted by Correspondence Committee on October 20, 2009 at 08:47:51:
In Reply to: Re: "collective worker control" rather than "socialism" posted by david searles on October 16, 2009 at 23:44:04:
Moore stresses the need to replace Capitalism but draws back from the term Socialism or Democratic Socialism while embracing 'democracy in the workplace' and worker control. This may be what you envision.
Defining socialism and capitalism aside, several questions however, still remain that I'd sincerely like to discuss, as to this 'worker-control solution':
As you see it:
#1. Is the GOAL of this 'solution' a continuing
'balance of worker control WITHIN Capitalism')....In other words, Dave, do you see this as the GOAL or the next stage that seems possible right now that could eventually lead to a wholistic cooperative system?
Do you believe you can have 'worker control' and true democracy & human liberation while retaining private ownership and its concomitant(capitalist) market system and 'free enterprise based on competition'? That is, in the short & longer term, how do you think worker-ownership could adjust to the ever-downward spiral of the market: greater worker exploitation, lowered wages & layoffs that can lead to price-wars and lower prices? Could fair-wage cooperatives survive in this capitalist framework? Could they 'decide' to lay off or fire their 'fellow-owners'? While these
hard-hearted measures come by nature to the capitalist system & advocates/supporters of it. Howwould 'humane'
workers deal with it?
Moore doesn't answer this. What do you feel & envision as your solution's probable outcomes?
As for 'no definition of socialism', like all language, we get to add new words, define & redefine old ones,and so on as times & culture changes. BUT most people's GENERAL notion of Socialism is 'people sharing the wealth'. It can be more systemically defined, of course, or 'scientifically' defined (Marx did this in his day) as full democratic ownership & management of society both civic & economic.
Beyond that, many details can be envisioned: about private-home-ownership supplanted by arrangements more akin to condos & coops,a system managed publically.
Communities being formed around single-shared interests (like art or scienceor philosophies, etc) or multi-culturally. That is an endless conjecture & fine...but the rudimentary, agreed upon 'definition' and 'mechanics' are I think universal but I suppose do require an understanding of terms thru Marxist definition: cooperation and equality of participation & power-sharing,no profit,no exploitation,no private
property. But even before Marx, Proudhon defined private property as theft & that may be as good a defionition as any as a starting point for understand- ing & envisioning. I don't think it takes much more, witness the everlasting call for some form of socialism since the dawn of class division & private property ... the teachings of Jesus, etc. So Dave, what
do you see as our future? Is 'controlling capitalism' possible or do systems create their own 'inescapable' dynamics? Interested....Thanks.
CorrCom member