New Political Party

[beagle]

I'm not anti-union per se. In fact I was a member of two a couple of decades ago. It's the subversion of a whole union by a small minority intent on using it as an extremist political tool that I opposed. Did the union at British Leyland do its members any favours? Even allowing for the contribution from incompetent management. How many jobs did they destroy in the quest for a Marxist Utopia?

I suspect that change was inevitable eventually, but Britain could well have ended up with Zimbabwe levels of inflation and infrastructure damage first.

[Swatopluk]

The phenomenon I describe has not much do do with Marxism (they just didn't change the rhetorics for about a century) but with raw power for the leadership.
I think we all here would agree to a balance between labor and business interests (though we might not on the specific nature).
I even consider a certain degree of protectionism defensible, if it protects the society as a whole not just narrow interests (no sympathy for the French banana wars or the US steel tariffs though).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I totally agree, that historically, unions were a necessary balance to over-powerful corporations.

I also agree that, in the past, unions have greatly reduced the fatalities and other exploitation of workers by at best, indifferent "I Want! I Want! NOW!" corporate-mentality.

But, the old saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is as true for Union Leaders as it is for the Heads of SuperMegaCorp, Inc.

Today, many unions are so bloated with union leadership that has lost touch with the REAL needs of it's workers, as to be a liability instead of an asset.

Note I said "many".

Moreover, on the flip-side, in spite of a great deal of corruption, over-the-top behavior and such, the mere existence of those unions serves as a brake on the runaway behavior of "I Want! I Want! NOW!" that is by law* the attitude of SuperMegaCorp, Inc.

I suppose, like ANY pile of Human Achievement, from time to time, we need to tear it down to the foundation, and rebuild?

I sometimes wonder....


____________________________________

* years ago, I read a story of a corporation that had made it it's moto to give away as much of it's profits as it could stand, and still be competitive. That is, the heads of this corporation had an altruistic spirit, and wanted to "give back" to it's community in many and varied ways-- far above what would have benefited them tax-wise.

This they proceeded to do.

The heads were immediately taken to court, by the stock-holders (the corporations investors).  These folk complained that they were not getting their "just due" returns on their stock, by the rampant giving away of profits (which was done before computing dividends? Apparently-- it's been years).

Anyway, the courts upheld the stock-holder's wishes in this matter:  stating that it was the DUTY of the corporation (and indirectly, it's board of directors) to make PROFIT FIRST, and altruism second.

I do not know any more details, but I have memory that most of the above is actually based on a true story.

In any case, it IS based on policy.

[goat starer]

I think we all here would agree to a balance between labor and business interests (though we might not on the specific nature).

I wouldn't. I would ban business for profit altogether (although I realise this is controversial)

[beagle]

I think we all here would agree to a balance between labor and business interests (though we might not on the specific nature).

I wouldn't. I would ban business for profit altogether (although I realise this is controversial)

Not to those of us who remember the first internet boom...

[Sibling Chatty]

First internet boom? Oh, yeah, all the miracle script kiddies in the US wanting to be allowed to not put their Social Security money into Social Security, but put it into their company stock. The stock that went from $93 a share to $0.19 a share in less that 72 hours?? I had a GREAT time after that blow-up, taunting them. Of course, most of them weren't around as much, what with moving back into Mom and Dad's and having to work an Starbucks and Chili's both to keep up their car payments--and that's after letting the condo go back to the mortgage company.

It was sad, but they didn't learn, for the most part. They STILL supported privatization, without looking at the set up, which was heavily in favor of the 'fund managers' and the government, and only guaranteed that they'd be able to risk ALL their old age funds instead of some of them. Some people don't learn.

(See also: Enron)

[beagle]

There's a great book (which you may well have seen) on this area:

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

It's way out of copyright and free online.

I'm interested in how Goat's "not for profit" companies are going to work. How do they raise capital? Or is the idea to embark on projects suited to the size of a smallish barter based commune society?

[goat starer]

raising capital is only relevant in a society that is capitalist as capital is a capitalist concept. if every company operated not for profit and everyone was paid the same the total resources in the economy would not change just their distribution and the decision making processes would be devolved throughout society.

There are plenty of very successful social enterprises in Britain today - the largest being Welsh Water - that operate not for profit. Even within a capitalist society it is easy for not for profit organisations to operate as they do not have to hand over large chunks of generated revenue to shareholders and can thus reinvest in improving services.

One good example of a large company moving towards a proper democratic model is Semco in Brazil

[beagle]

Reading about Welsh Water it seems that a very large part of its activities are outsourced. It would be interesting to know why that is. It *might* be that is related to my question; that it offsets the cost and risk of big capital projects by pushing them onto the private sector, like Labour does with PFI. Of course there might be other explanations.

I don't particularly doubt that a minimal economy can be run on a not-for-profit basis, just that it is not an efficient mechanism for capital intensive or entrepreneurial projects. My understanding is that the ability to raise money on the stock exchange for new projects was one of the reasons England pulled ahead economically of the French and Dutch rivals.

Of course if the intention is to provide a constant sustainable green non-growing economy then this might not be an issue.

[goat starer]

I have seen more entrepreneurialism from people in deprived communities to improve their lot on a not for profit basis than in any other place and that is with spending the last 5 years working in with small businesses and enterprise programmes. peoples ability to produce change is not created by money. It is innate. Look at the great artists, inventors etc who died in penury. It is the system that hols nback entrepreneurialism by imposing a system of capital that ensures that for every winner there must be many losers.

[beagle]

I don't doubt that creativity is innate (though many artists and musicians found it convenient to attach themselves to a patron). But if we really felt the injection of capital couldn't have a big effect why would anyone give to Water Aid, The Princes Trust or other charities that give people a leg up? Whether not for profit or corporate, well directed use of capital can have a leveraging (oh my god, I'm Talking American  ) effect. Other systems might be able to achieve the same end, but none so far seems to have worked anywhere near as well in practice, let alone better, and none seems as self-organising or scalable.

I guess your last sentence comes back to Churchill's quote about the "unequal sharing of blessings" versus "the equal sharing of misery". My view is that the cake can grow for everyone (as seen in South Korea etc in recent decades).

(This is fun. Don't meet many Marxists in rural Cambridgeshire  ).

[Aggie]

I guess your last sentence comes back to Churchill's quote about the "unequal sharing of blessings" versus "the equal sharing of misery". My view is that the cake can grow for everyone (as seen in South Korea etc in recent decades).

S. Korea's a good example (althogh there's very little social security, no minimum wage, and jobs that pay well require an extensive post-secondary education just to qualify), but the sugar for the cake still has to come from somewhere.  I'm not sure if it's the case globally, but North America's become pretty familiar with the names Hyundai, Samsung, LG etc. in the last decade...  it'd be interesting to look at how American competitors have fared in that time period.

Korea still has kept a bottom-up entrepreneurial economy to a large degree, though, especially in terms of grocery markets, fashion/clothing, the service industries, and even medical and dental services.  If I ever require major dental work, I'll probably fly there to have the work done, and still save money compared to the bloated bill (which my dental insurance won't totally cover) I'd get here.

[goat starer]

But if we really felt the injection of capital couldn't have a big effect why would anyone give to Water Aid, The Princes Trust or other charities that give people a leg up?

I suppose I would say that in a capitalist society it takes capitalist behaviour to stimulate action. Capitalist projects need injections of capital. At each stage of human evolution a means of cooperation, creativity and construction has existed. A money based sysetem is only its current incarnation. Somehow the lack of capital investment did not stifle the development of money.... 

(This is fun. Don't meet many Marxists in rural Cambridgeshire  ).

you are all too busy quaffing port, fox hunting and beating the servants  to be honest you dont meet many anywhere! We will have to start our own somewhat bizarre right/left think tank and call it Extremia

[beagle]

Not many servants left to beat these days. Times are hard. Had to let the second pastry chef go this morning. Comes to something when you can't have a biscuit. *

Like the idea of the think tank.


---
* This comment (C) someonefamouswhosenameiveforgotten

[goat starer]

times are so hard up here we are having to make 1000 'hoodies' redundant and the bottom has dropped out of the 'daft spoiler' industry altogether. But we were happy though we are poor...

because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".

etc