Re: Corporations/Side Issue

[Mike Ballard <swillsqueal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- paul phillips <phillipsp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mike B wrote
>
> > I agree, it would be much better, if workers ran
> and
> > managed the the firms in which they exploited
> > themselves for surplus value.  Honestly though,
> > hasn't the history of creating such entities, like
> > say
> > Mondragon or the Amana Colony or the kibbutz
> > movement
> > and all the utopian socialist movements of the
> > past--
> > co:operatives included--proven that they always
> > morph
> > into the undemocratic, totalitarian corporate
> > structures which we see ruling us today?
> >
> > In other words, hasn't wage-labour always resulted
> > in
> > the developement of capitalist social relations?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Mike B)
> >
> >
> What evidence is there that Mondragon has morphed
> into an "undemocratic, totalitarian corporate
> structure?"
>
> Last I heard it was still going strong and expanding
> without
> any change in its co-operative structure.  Check out
> the
> Mondragon website.

I'm wondering about these pressures to cut costs which
Chomsky refers to.  Don't they lead to the big, nice
co:operative having to try to find cheaper sources of
material via low wage, usually dictatorial political
states?

And apologies to all (especially to jks) for bringing
this topic up again.  I just don't see a way out of
the tendency of the rate of exploitation to increase
as the rate of democracy decreases in economies
dominated by the politics of commodification.

Regards,
Mike B)
*******************************************************
Re Mondragon

Reply from NC, to Jeremy Gibson, on Mondragon.

You're right to take this very seriously, in my
opinion.  It is a very substantial experiment in
participant-owned economy, including production,
finance, commerce and retail; and in terms of standard
economic measures, it's been quite successful.  There
have also been problems.  To what extent these derive
from implantation within a state capitalist economy of
the standard kind (e.g., the pressure to shift
production to low-wage high-repression areas where
workers will not be owners, violating the original
principle that kept this to below 10% of the
workforce) or to inherent factors of institutional
structure (such as separation of professional
management from workforce) is not so easy to
determine, and merits careful thought.  There is a lot
of literature on the topic.  A couple of fairly recent
books are David Ellerman, _The Democratic Worker-Owned
Firm_, and William & Kathleen Whyte, _Making
Mondragon_.  There was a review a year or two ago by
Mike Long in Libertarian Labor Review that I thought
was quite well-informed, perceptive, and interesting
(it was, incidentally, critical of my own criticism of
Mondragon for hierarchic managerial structures); my
understanding is that he might be a little less
optimistic about the prospects himself, right now.

Whatever one's assessment, this is an extremely
important endeavor, in my opinion, and should be
carefully studied.

Noam Chomsky

 http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomforumacrh.htm

=====
****************************************************************
...the safest course is to do nothing
against one's conscience.
With this secret, we can enjoy
life and have no fear from death.
    Voltaire

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com