Re: A story of nickel and dimes

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, yes, it is a comprehensive subject, you can do a solid, thoughtful
course in it at Glasgow University (see
http://www.lib.gla.ac.uk/courses/law/veitch.shtml). The question is what
sort of juridical structure would actually deliver genuine justice in an
efficient way (i.e. jurisprudential principles which promote efficient,
effective, low-cost justice from a macro and micro point of view) but I
suppose the basis for that, is a major reorganisation of property relations.

The proliferation of credit facilities, the increased mobility of capital,
and the separation of ownership, control and utilisation of economic
resources is in reality a recipe for irresponsibility, parasitism and crime.
This is not a specifically socialist argument, but it is true, you have to
understand the magnitude of it.

As regards Chirac, see also The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002578.html

In my previous remarks, I did not of course cover things like subsidiaries
and associated companies of Inco Ltd either. The thing I am trying to say
is, that you have here a corporation, which is owned/controlled by other
corporate entities, which are in turn owned/controlled by other corporate
entities, and so on, all over the world, with a diffuse pattern of
shareholdings and interlocking directorates, so that it would be virtually
impossible for any one person, to know exactly what was really going on in
the Inco Ltd empire at any specific point in time, nevermind decide
anything. It is not just Kanaks or myself who cannot easily penetrate
through the whole web of corporate relations, but people WITHIN Inco Ltd.
probably could not either.

What I am wondering is, when people like George W. Bush and Colin Powell
defend "private enterprise", do they really know, what they are defending ?
Could it be the case that this whole vast international corporate web,
constructed just for the purpose of money-making from nickel, might be in
fact be a recipe for global economic irresponsibility, and for an uneconomic
production and supply of nickel, never mind the political aspects ?

The suggestion here is, that large corporate entitities may, purely because
of their large and complex legal and organisational structure, and because
of the huge separation between ownership, control, and implementation of
corporate activity, be an massive obstacle to any rational utilisation and
supply of the nickel resource, even if human, environmental, health, social
and political issues can be resolved or even if the Green Party gets a boot
up the ass. In this case, you need socialism simply to rationalise this a
sector of the world economy and its relations with other sectors in the
world economy, to attain some sort of real economic efficiency and
responsibility.

This type of argument inverts the classic bourgeois prejudice that
"socialism is bureaucratic and inefficient" by saying "well let's have a
look at the efficiency of private enterprise, what does it actually mean,
what does it amount to". And as far as I can see, it means that in the
corporation, nobody is really responsible, not, because they do not have
positions of responsibility, but because of epistemic problems, uncertainty,
constraints, uncontrollable forces, risks. But these problems arise mainly
out of the organisational structure of the corporation itself. It is
possible to have a very exact picture of the world nickel industry and know
how to mine efficiently and effectively with the latest technology. But it
is mainly the legal, economic, organisational, political, social, cultural,
environmentalist context in which you do this, in other words, "society",
that causes epistemic problems, uncertainty, constraints, uncontrollable
forces, risks. In other words, corporate risks are largely manufactured by
the corporations themselves. The job of the politician is to reconcile
corporate objectives with whatever else is going on.

As I said, I didn't want to go into the political nitty gritty of Inco
mining in New Caledonia, but the literature on it shows, how complex it is.
I had a debate with David Schanoes on Marxmail about "the law versus class
politics" but if your work you way through the literature about the politics
of nickel mining, you will probably agree with me David is wellmeaning, but
just a little naive in his utterances.

I will just refer to some the the sources about and Inco in Kanaky (mainly
Canadian Mining Watch):

Background on Inco's mining activities in Kanaky/New Caledonia
http://www.miningwatch.ca/publications/New_Caledonia_backgnd.html

Speech by Scott Hand in the presence of Jacques Chirac:
http://www.inco.com/investorinfo/presentations/SMH_english.pdf

2003 Visit by a Kanak fact-finding mission to North America:
http://www.miningwatch.ca/newsletter.html#Kanaks
http://www.miningwatch.ca/issues.html#anchor869053

Kanak Report, 2003
http://www.miningwatch.ca/issues/Nouvelle_Caledonie/March_19_2003_release.ht
ml

We ought to talk about organisational questions some more at some stage, Ian
!

Regards

Jurriaan



----- Original Message -----
From: "Eubulides" <paraconsistent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] A story of nickel and dimes


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > You get all these Marxists talkin' about the "Leninist theory of party
> > building", stuff like that, but now have a look at this, guys.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jurriaan
>
> ====================
>
> Exactly. The cosmopolitanism of ownership via existing parties is not to
> be met with homologous structured agency[ies]........
>
> A Pashukanis for the 21st century, perhaps...............
>
> Ian
>
>