Re: Streeck on German Codetermination

[Dennis R Redmond <dredmond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:

> However, before going off the deep end with praise we
> should keep in mind several things:
>      1)  The system of domination by banks is essentially
> that of Hilferding's Finanzkapital.

No it isn't. Wilhelmine capitalism was built on vertical monopolies
and universal banks, tied together in various cartels or family holding
firms of various kinds; there was no codetermination, not much of a
welfare state, and the Mittelstand was generally sacrificed in
recessions/depressions to the Ruhr industrialists. Post-WW II Germany is
very, very different -- industrial capital is strongly decentralized, each
federal state pursues canny industrial policies or otherwise tries to
buffer market forces, and the universal banks are co-owners of the
industrial base along with the powerhouse multinationals, not hegemons in
the sense of Finanzkapital. This may change in the future, now that
Germany is slowly rentierizing its economy, but for now the industrialists
still hold the upper hand (this is why short-term German interest rates
are 3.25%, actually quite stimulative in real terms).

>      2)  Germany has a terrible record in regard to womens'
> rights, abortion rights, etc.

Quite true. But what does this have to do with codetermination? Folks
forget that Germany was basically a Second World country as late as 1947
or so (the biggest industry until the late Fifties was coal-mining, not
automobiles). The sexism is atrocious, but not any worse than, say, the
kind you'll find in Poland or Brazil today.

>      3)  Although Mitbestimmung offers some greater role
> for labor in managerial decisionmaking, it is arguably not
> as great as one gets in the Slovenian workers-management
> (now increasingly backed up by workers ownership) system
> derived from the old Yugoslav system.

Sounds intriguing. Are there any good studies or texts published on this?

-- Dennis