Why does a choice have to be made between private capitalist--or 
even private cooperative--ownership on the one hand and state 
ownership <albeit a democratic state> on the other?  This is 
to presuppose that property is one thing and must be vested 
whole and entire in one kind of social actor or another.  But 
*social* ownership should rather be seen as involving a rejection 
of this assumption.  The concept of property involves a *range* of 
rights and enjoyments, which under a system of *social* ownership 
would be *disaggregated* and distributed to various social actors, 
as against all of them being vested in private individuals *or* 
public agencies. Some property rights in the means of production 
could be be given to democratic collectives of workers--rights to 
use, to management, to income <including net enterprise profits>,
but with no right to alienate or decapitalize the assets they 
employ. Other rights could be assigned to a variety of operationally 
independent but still publicly accountable investment agencies which
would be funded by taxing the capital assets employed by individual
enterprises--rights of control over the allocation of new funds for 
investment in specific firms, and the right to oversight of the use of 
previously invested funds.  Other rights could be vested in democratic 
political bodies, such as local, state, or national legislatures--the 
right  to decide on broad priorities in the aggregate level and 
composition  of investment and public spending, the right to regulate 
firms, and the right to oversee investment agencies.  In addition 
to such forms of social ownership, there could also be small 
businesses run as private cooperatives with full ownership rights
over the capital assets, considerable scope for individual 
self-employment, and large industries run as fully nationalized 
concerns along the lines of recent West European practice. 
But the key in all cases would be: no income simply from private 
ownership of capital, and the continuous subjection of the market 
to democratic forms of planning, regulation and redistributive
taxation and spending.
  
Peter Burns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

Reply via email to