>All his stuff is very analytical. His big book is Against Capitalism (Westview 1996). He has a forthcoming book called Beyond Capitalism that will be shorter and take into account subsequent criticisms. He has a lot of papers discussing aspects of the model, for example, in an a Bertell Ollman collection called Market Socialsim, the Decabte Among Socialists.
I will seek out some copies. Thanks for the references. >>My 'non-distributing service sector' is a European development -it's >>pushed in the EU as part of their partnership model, viz, the inclusion of >>the private, public, voluntary and community sector in the economic >>development process. >Sort of a Mitbestimmung model, including unions and community groups in >planning? The problem with including ad hoc groups in any other way than >lobbying, unions aside of course, is that these tend to be rather unrepresentative of anything in particular and often undemocratically run, so it may end up giving a large voice to those who have the time, energy, and skill to organize a community group, regardless of whether this group has a perspective oe represents an interest that is widely shared. Unions of course do represent a real interest and are another story. I think you have it all right. The problems you identify are common in the sector. I know very little about the academic side of this so your analysis will be worthwhile. I really see these independent community group organised businesses as bringing control back to the people generally and empowering them. As such, its a strategic push. Its also something which people can relate to and can start the resocialisation of the collective consciousness. In places these community organisations can become fiefdoms and this can lead to corruption - which is fairly rife in my experience. What's needed is for Government support (in terms of capital investment/initial revenue support) to be conditional on regular AGMs and stringent auditing. I agree with your focus on unions - but they really have very little representation in the small business/service sector in general. I would tend towards State control in the bigger industries but feel that small-scale, highly regulated non-profit taking companies can play a role in improving competitiveness and developing the base. It also empowers people involved and removes the need for the private sector (as in profit-driven) to be involved in local economic development. As such, it can protect against capital flight. I'm not a huge fan of the Social Partnership >approach but do recognise the potential to use the openings it affords to >empower people and to counter anti-socialist arguments. But which people? Most people I know work for a living, are unemployed or are stay-at-home mothers. That's the sort of people who are empowered. Besides, the rich don't need social partnership to empower them. So what happens to the profits made but not taken in the enterprises you are discussing? Varies. Usually goes into reinvestment or else some charitable trust. Usually best invested into property - that way the sector builds up a capital base for the future. In my experience most profits made get used up in allied service provision. The sector certainly works and can help grow economies in places where the private sector won't go in because of poor dividends. >For me, the adoption of a MS economic development strategy appears to be >the only logical position given the total disrepute which socialist planned >economies have in the popular mind (despite their successes in the early >Soviet Union and under Ché in Cuba). I note your agreement and the criticisms of others. I must justify this statement by my firm belief in action as opposed to verbal posturing. We can adopt all the perfect models we wish but unless we can implement them they are all for nought. That's not to justify some sort of 'reformist' limited intervention but to support a principled involvement in popular measures. Furthermore, I think that the criticisms are too US-centric, socialism is certainly not universally vilified around the world, if anything its difficulty in terms of attractiveness lies in the popular misconception of it as utopian and unrealisable. The usefulness of concrete projects delivering in practice is that we can use these as propaganda (taken of course in the context of wider struggle) to advance socialist consciousness. People whose children go to a community-run playgroup, who bank with Credit Unions, who invest with Friendly Societies and who learn in Community-run Learning Centres (not to mention Healthy Living Centres and the like) know that socialism works [at least confined to these activities)and that there is a better way. I think that these need to be sold as a new Economic Paradigm in the context of the expansion of democratic, state involvement in the larger scale sectors. Again, meaningful criticisms and suggestions will be valued. Perhaps you have ideas about how these larger sectors need to be organised - I have little knowledge of these and would find such information useful. Sé _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
