Re: Re: Re: Mill's Socialism

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The co-operatiives that Mill has in mind seem to be worker-owned producer
co-operatives primarily, not retail co-ops. Perhaps Ted or someone knows his
position on credit unions but I imagine he would approve of them as well.
    Mill imagines a mixture of worker-owned co-ops in competition with
individually owned capitalist firms with workers sharing in profits. These
co-op result from the workers accumulating their own capital not
expropriation. Indeed, Mill imagines capitalists to loan capital to these
enterprises at ever-diminishing rates of interest! (Talk about Utopian
Socialism!)Over time, the co-op enterprises come to be predominant. There is
nothing at all about abolition of profit and production on the basis of need
rather than profit. At least if there is, I don't see it in the sections
singled out. This seems to be capitalism among co-ops. Maybe that is what
Justin means by market socialism. Mill's musings on competition would please
the most ardent free market capitalist. What was Mill's position on minimum
wages. Minimum wages obviously prevent competition among labor driving wages
below a certain minimum. Does this increase idleness?

   " Instead of looking upon competition as the baneful and
anti-social principle which it is held to be by the generality of
Socialists, I conceive that, even in the present state of society
and industry, every restriction of it is an evil, and every
extension of it, even if for the time injuriously affecting some
class of labourers, is always an ultimate good. To be protected
against competition is to be protected in idleness, in mental
dulness; to be saved the necessity of being as active and as
intelligent as other people; and if it is also to be protected
against being underbid for employment by a less highly paid class
of labourers, this is only where old custom, or local and partial
monopoly, has placed some particular class of artisans in a
privileged position as compared with the rest; and the time has
come when the interest of universal improvement is no longer
promoted by prolonging the privileges of a few. If the
slopsellers and others of their class have lowered the wages of
tailors, and some other artisans, by making them an affair of
competition instead of custom, so much the better in the end.
What is now required is not to bolster up old customs, whereby
limited classes of labouring people obtain partial gains which
interest them in keeping up the present organization of society,
but to introduce new general practices beneficial to all; and
there is reason to rejoice at whatever makes the privileged
classes of skilled artisans feel that they have the same
interests, and depend for their remuneration on the same general
causes, and must resort for the improvement of their condition to
the same remedies, as the less fortunately circumstanced and
comparatively helpless multitude."

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 2:40 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:1062] Re: Re: Mill's Socialism


> >Justin wrote:
> >
> >> Read the section On the Probable Futurity of the Laboring Classes in
> Part IV
> >> of a later edition of Principlesof Political Economy. He clearly
expects
> the
> >> end of the wage relationship, thinks workers won't stand for it any
more.
> >> --jks
> >>
> >This is available on-line at:
> >
>
><http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/prin/book4/bk4ch07
>
> >
> >Ted
>
> Actually this is a proposal for cooperatives. I don't mind cooperatives.
> When I was growing up in the Catskills, we used to buy lawn seed at the
> co-op feedmill down the street at a darned good price. The only thing I
> regret nowadays is shooting at pigeons by the feedmill with my bb gun.
> Honest, I didn't know any better.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
>
>