******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
On 12/19/2014 04:12 PM, Andrew Pollack via Marxism wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > No no no no no. > This is so politically dishonest, or at best naive. > At the end she says localities should go ahead and plan even if the > national government doesn't share resources with them. In plain English > (paraphrasing): "Never mind that in the examples I give - Brazil, Venezuela > and Kerala -- the bourgeoisie still controls the commanding heights, we can > still have loads of fun in our neighborhoods!" > And no mention of workplace councils. > And the usual tiresome avoidance of the early Soviet history and theory on > this question. >> By *Marta Harnecker* >> Full article http://links.org.au/node/4208 Granted it's only "a synthesis of ideas that are more fully developed in a book I am currently working on", but as it is it's far too vague on the practical application (needs more concrete examples) to be interesting. Too much "in the most autonomous manner possible", "as much as possible" kind of talk, which just begs the more concrete question of what she thinks *is* possible. One could respond that that depends on the circumstances, which of course can vary tremendously. But in that case "as much as possible" is just a nice principle. How much stuff is it possible to take care of in localities of a few hundred people? Surely 'a lot', but how does this compare to the amount of stuff that cannot feasibly be organised except in a centralised way – say, on the level of a state, or even a federation of states? (Like industrial production processes.) Either in terms of money price, or in labour hours, doesn't matter, as long as it gives some idea of proportion. I don't really know what the proportions would be, so it would have been nice if the article would have had some estimates on that in it. I don't think people have to sit in a meeting deciding on something in that very meeting, so that it can be said they have participated. I wouldn't be interested in that. As it is, I sit in trade union branch meetings 2-3 hours every three weeks, it's boring as hell, i.e. it's like most organisation board work I've taken part in over the years. If someone suggests to make a revolution so that there can be even more of it, I don't think I'll be joining. Anything that hints of parecon style constant meeting hell "participation" really puts me off. I'd be ok with workplace meetings to organise local work to implement the national/federational plan (decided on in a national/etc. vote), taking part in a "main budget headings" style vote over mobile telephone etc., instead of sitting out a bunch of cranks in "real" meetings, "participating". As to a "system of territorial units of administration that have autonomy to administer themselves", I don't think this is self-evidently a better aim than limiting local autonomy to ensure all citizens' equality. In Finland for example you can see this situation being twisted now one, now the other way, whatever suits the needs of the moment. The state collects money from the municipalities, and distributes it from the richer municipalities to the poorer. But municipalities have autonomy, so the state cannot earmark the money it gives to them, "this is for schools, this is for health care" etc.; the municipal councils spend the money as they wish, so some municipalities might put more money into schools than others. This is the "municipal democracy! municipal democracy!" side of the argument, which you can always choose if it suits you. But this will lead to children in different municipalities being in an unequal position. The state could demand that all children across all municipalities should have certain level schools and insist that municipalities must spend a certain amount of money per child in schools (or some other such principle). This is clearly against the idea of municipal autonomy, but at the same time it's the "equality of all the citizens! equality of all the citizens!" side of the argument, which you can also always choose, if it suits you. It seems like a problem that genuinely has no solution, except on the level of "as autonomously as possible" style generalities. Let's hope the book will flesh out some concrete details. -- jjonas @ nic.fi _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
