Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[miychi]

y about
> criticizing pretty much everybody else except Engels. So, the modesty you
> suggest doesn't immediately square with much of his style and personality.<
> 
> All sorts of horrible people, such as Pol Pot, have claimed Marx's banner.
> That seems sufficient to make Marx wince. Remember that during his own
> lifetime, he rejected the idea of "Marxism," by saying he wasn't a
> "Marxist."
> 
> ^^^
> 
> CB: Pol Pot is one time not "every time" Marx's name is invoked. There are
> many times when Marx's name has been invoked when he probably would approve.
> 
> I interpret the quote "I am not a Marxist"  as witty and as having narrow
> application to some specific people , and not that Marx rejected his own
> theory. This certainly seems to be the way Engels interprets it.
> 
> ^
> 
> I wrote:>>"Democratic centralism" has always referred to a mode of party
> organization, not to a mode of analysis. You can stretch the meaning of this
> phrase if you want to (as academics so often do), but it makes it incoherent
> to me and to most other people.<<
> 
>> CB: A key thing about the Party and party democracy (the "democratic" in
> democratic centralism) is that it be closely connected with the masses. You
> can't be democratic if you are  not connected to the masses. The
> "democratic" in democratic centralism must be the extensive connections
> between the masses and its leaders in the Party.
> 
>> It's incoherent to you because you have an idea that practictioners of it
> have not been connected to the masses. If you don't get the emphasis on
> connection between the party and the masses, then you don't understand the
> "democratic"  in democratic centralist theory.<
> 
> It's true that the measing of words is typically pretty arbitrary. So if you
> want to use the word "democratic" in that way, we're talking about two
> completely different things. (I was talking about democracy within the
> party, whereas you're talking about a party's relationship with the
> "masses.") 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> CB: I'm not sure in what sense you mean that the meaning of words is typically
> pretty arbitrary. "Democratic" usually means popular sovereignty as opposed to
> dictatorship. 
> 
> If "democracy" is confined to the petty democracy of the small minority of the
> population that is in the Party, then it is not worth much. The decisions of
> the Party must be based on the experience of the masses of the population as
> well as the theory of the leaders in the Party. And I don't agree that
> Communist Parties have completely failed at this process, though there have
> been failures. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote:>> I didn't say "politically unconcious." In fact, I put the word
> "spontaneity" in quotes for a reason, because "spontaneity" is a vague and
> confusing concept. Rather, what I was saying was that much of the opposition
> to the coup came _from below_ (based on the short- and long-term  class and
> national interests of those participating) rather than being orchestrated by
> the  Bolivarist or any other organization.<<
> 
>> CB: You assume the Party is "above" the masses.<
> 
> Most self-styled "democratic centralist" parties _see themselves_ in this
> way. This is the tradition of the Kautsky-Lenin story in WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
> in which socialist consciousness among the "masses" must come "from above"
> or "from the outside" from the intellectuals of the Party. I haven't seen
> very many "Leninist" parties that hope to learn from the "masses" (or to
> treat them as peers) or emphasize the importance of  democratic
> self-organization by the "masses." (Some Trotskyist parties go with the
> latter.) 
> 
> ^
> 
> CB: My impression is that the Bolivarians see themselves as from and with the
> masses, especially the poor,  not above them. The idea is of leaders who are
> integrated with the masses, yet still lead. Democratic centralism is a
> contradiction or a method for dealing with a contradiction: The need for unity
> and leadership for successful struggle against an antagonistic opponent, the
> capitalists, yet the need for empowerment of the masses as individuals as a
> primary goal of the whole revolutionary movement.  This contradiction arises
> in any democratic effort, as perhaps you allude to in saying that the
> "democratic centralist" ideal has a long history.
> 
> I 

RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Devine, James]

>Perhaps plutocratic dictatorship, or plutocracy is better.<

when I see the word "plutocracy," I am reminded of two things:

(1) Years ago, I read an article in the PROCEEDINGS of the U.S. Navy
Institute that labeled the U.S. system using this word. Was this a move in
the direction of increasing the legitimacy of the idea of replacing the
plutocracy with military rule? 

(2)I think of Disney Dogs. Looking at the current occupant of the Oval
Office, I wonder if instead of "Plutocracy," we have "Goofyocracy."

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Bill Lear]

On Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 11:14:50 (-0400) Charles Brown writes:
>...
>CB: In using your model, I would say that even though there is a
>partially democratic hierarchy in the U.S. governments, the
>totalitarian corporate system rules the U.S. governments
>substantially, such that the U.S. system should be termed totalitarian
>too.  If we use the totalitarian model, we should include the U.S. as
>totalitarian, otherwise there is too much of an implication of
>democracy in the U.S.system. Alternatively it might be termed a
>bourgeois dictatorship.

The only problem I have with this is that we have a great deal of
substantive freedoms, often won at great cost to those who have fought
for them.  At a certain point, once you add enough freedoms, I think
it would be difficult for the system to be called "totalitarian".  I'm
not sure where that point lies, though.

Jim seems to think that the term has too much baggage associated with
it, which is fine.  But if you consider the dictionary definition, it
seems to me that, as Michael Perelman pointed out, and as anyone who
has set foot within corporate America knows, the corporate system
itself approaches the definition much more closely than does the
political system.  As Reich points out, workers lose "most of the
political and civil rights they enjoy as citizens of the state" upon
entry to corporate America.  This seems to me to be evidence of a
clear line between two very different realms.

However, I can see an argument that what we have is indeed (the
dictionary form of) totalitarianism, albeit one that is "imperfect"
because the masters are constrained by those annoying things called
the Constitution, public opinion and direct action, and differences
among investors --- which often open up significant avenues of popular
input.  Every totalitarian system has these "flaws"; even the Soviet
Union had limits to what it could or was willing to do to its
population, so again, I'm not sure where we draw the line.

Perhaps plutocratic dictatorship, or plutocracy is better.  I would
still like a neat term, though, that would allow us to describe a
system of relationships such as slave/master, worker/owner,
husband/wife (when women "know their place").  Though it seems a bit
odd to describe the slave/master relationship as a "dictatorship" or
"totalitarian", I think the plain term fits.

Sabri mentioned object-oriented programming, so here's an OO diagram
describing another possible term:


   Slavery
  |
  +---+--+--+
  |   |  |  |
   Chattel  Wage  Marital   ?


Well, anyway, at least "we know it when we see it".


Bill

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[bantam]

>  

G'day Charles, 

> CB: Thanks , Rob.  What is your take on the usual usage that a "big
> bureaucracy" is a bad thing , implying that making it "smaller" would
> improve it  ? Seems to me the problem you summarize is the dictatorial
> or "undemocratic" structure of socalled bureaucracies.  This implies
> that it is the small number of autocrats, not the large number of
> people who make up the "bureaucracy" that would be the problem.
>
> I understand your wish to preserve Weber's insights. My concern is
> that right now, the term bureaucracy is always used to argue for
> privatization. Weber's examples of private companies is specifically
> not the widespread meaning in this context, otherwise there would be
> no argument that privatisation gets rid of the problems of
> "bureaucracy".
>
> If the Taylor system is a bureaucracy, is a factory system a
> bureaucracy ?

Yep.  Bureaucracy, in the Weberian sense, is the rule of the human world
by what he calls western rationality (you and I might see this 'western
rationality' as a function of capitalism, but I suspect Weber'd have it
the other way 'round - a potentially big disagreement, but not on what
we're talking about here).  Bureaucracy is the top-down imposition of
the ensuing principles - that way, we're all enmeshed in what Weber
called 'the iron cage of bureaucratic rationality'.  Anything that
bubbles from the bottom up is anathema to it - potentially fatal to it. 
A distaste for bureaucracy is a distaste for high capitalism to my mind,
but a tendency more to Shliapnikov's or Trotsky's ideas of an economy
run by decentralised workers' councils, in concert (for the latter) with
limited markets, than to a centralised command economy.  Modern
computing power might solve a lot of the problems that defeated the SU
planning nomenklatura, but it wouldn't solve the one we're on about.

> I think we should use the term "dictatorship" and "bourgeois
> dictatorship " to refer to corporate structures , including factory
> systems.

I've no problem with that.  But I reckon we have explicitly to add a bit
of Marx to our Weber here - to highlight that it's not bureaucratic
rationality that's producing the system (although it helps reproduce
it), but the system that's producing the bureaucratic rationality.

Cheers,
Rob.

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Charles Brown]

 Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
by Bill Lear
17 April 2002 15:49 UTC  

-clip-




As I said, I think the distinction between the terms "hierarchy" and
"totalitarian" is important.  You can have a democratic hierarchy with
those in "higher" positions, for example, being contact points for
information flows, and serving for only a very limited time after
which they rotate back "below" others.  This is not so possible in
corporate America, aside from perhaps instances that are simply at the
level of statistical error.  Orders come from above, as they do in
totalitarian states.  As with any system, there is always a certain
amount of principle/agent problem to be dealt with.  In a totalitarian
society, sometimes people are asked their opinion, sometimes they get
to help run things, but they never rule.  Same thing in a corporate
hierarchy.  One other thing worth mentioning is that corporations are
not merely separate entities interacting through a market.  They are
quite typically diverse, with interlocking directorates.  Furthermore,
they dominate state policy, which has resulted in a profound level of
violence (a "contradiction" if ever there was one).  Ditto for
totalitarian states.



CB: In using your model, I would say that even though there is a partially democratic 
hierarchy in the U.S. governments, the totalitarian corporate system rules the U.S. 
governments substantially, such that the U.S. system should be termed totalitarian 
too.   If we use the totalitarian model, we should include the U.S. as totalitarian, 
otherwise there is too much of an implication of democracy in the U.S.system. 
Alternatively it might be termed a bourgeois dictatorship.

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Charles Brown]

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
by bantam
17 April 2002 14:43 

Hi again Charles,

Weber really is a cracking good read on bureaucracy, and the examples he
plucks from his time and place are mostly taken from private enterprise
in wholesale manufacture - a heroic whinge about reality getting
distorted and edited into quantifiable and surveilled bits and pieces,
about particulars having to be lumped into dehumanised categories, about
the ascendance of timidity and the worship of order, and about the
soulless machine we are making of ourselves.  Taylorism strikes me as
the ideal-type target of this brilliant assault.

'Bureaucracy' has been framed as a synonym for the state these days,
sure, but that's discursively retrievable, I reckon, if we go at it in
the sense Weber was on about.  And I don't think we can do that with a
substitutionist, top-down, central-planning sorta programme.  Do the
analysis of current dynamics and dream the dream, and do it publicly and
charmingly articulately - that's my idea of doing politics in the modern
'north'.

^^

CB: Thanks , Rob.  What is your take on the usual usage that a "big bureaucracy" is a 
bad thing , implying that making it "smaller" would improve it  ? Seems to me the 
problem you summarize is the dictatorial or "undemocratic" structure of socalled 
bureaucracies.  This implies that it is the small number of autocrats, not the large 
number of people who make up the "bureaucracy" that would be the problem.

I understand your wish to preserve Weber's insights. My concern is that right now, the 
term bureaucracy is always used to argue for privatization. Weber's examples of 
private companies is specifically not the widespread meaning in this context, 
otherwise there would be no argument that privatisation gets rid of the problems of 
"bureaucracy".

If the Taylor system is a bureaucracy, is a factory system a bureaucracy ?  

I think we should use the term "dictatorship" and "bourgeois dictatorship " to refer 
to corporate structures , including factory systems.




http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/education/18EDIS.html 


April 18, 2002

Private Groups Get 42 Schools in Philadelphia
By JACQUES STEINBERG
 


Timothy M. Shaffer for The New York Times
Student protesters blocked the Philadelphia school system's administration building 
yesterday, delaying the meeting of a state commission that was prepared to vote on 
privatizing some of the schools.

 
 
  For-Profit School Venture Has Yet to Turn a Profit (April 8, 2002) 

Buying in to the Company School (February 17, 2002) 

   
 
  
 
 
  
Topics
 Alerts  
 
  Edison Schools Incorporated  
 
  Education and Schools  
 
  Reading and Writing Skills  
 
  Reform and Reorganization  
 
 Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour   
 
 
 
 Sign Up for Newsletters  
 
 
 
  Join a Discussion on Ideas on Contemporary Education

   
 
 
 
HILADELPHIA, April 17 — In what is believed to be the largest experiment in 
privatization mounted by an American school district, a state panel charged with 
improving the Philadelphia public school system voted tonight to transfer control of 
42 failing city schools to seven outside managers, including Edison Schools Inc. and 
two universities.

The three members of the School Reform Commission appointed by Gov. Mark Schweiker 
voted for the plan, while the two members appointed by Mayor John F. Street voted 
against it. The vote capped a fiery three-hour meeting in which the two sides had 
split over whether Edison, the nation's largest for-profit operator of public schools, 
had the capacity and know-how to improve the 20 schools that it was assigned. 

"I want this reform to succeed," Michael Masch, a vice president at the University of 
Pennsylvania and one of the mayor's two appointees to the panel, said at one point in 
the debate. "I am gravely concerned that the magnitude of the change being proposed is 
imprudent."

Moments later, James P. Gallagher, the president of Philadelphia University and one of 
the governor's three appointees, said, "We should push the envelope and be as 
aggressive as possible."

The panel's vote today represents a milestone in the decade-long growth of the 
movement to turn troubled public schools over to private operators. There is no better 
index of the impact of this effort than Edison's own expansion: over the last six 
years, it has gone from operating a handful of public schools to more than 130 in 22 
states, with a combined student population that is larger than all but a few dozen 
urban districts.

All told, the Philadelphia panel voted to assign an outside manager to one of every 
six schools in the city. In addition to Edison, the other organizations involved 
include two colleges that are in Philadelphia: Temple Unive

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Charles Jannuzi]

>   Why does  a large  firm like Ford  have many  different factories
>  which exchange  commodities (e.g. car parts) with  each other but
>  without using the market?

Interestingly enough, Toyota, always rated one of the most 'efficient' and
'profitable' of the Japanese automakers is the least vertically hierchical.
It passes risks and distress in the market onto its numerous suppliers and
acts as a center for design, marketing and final assembly (with intense
quality control processes). It's exact opposite would have to be GM.

Besides selling off parts divisions, Ghosn at Nissan is trying to Toyotatize
the firm. Actually, the two goals go together. He sells off a parts division
and it might get contracts with Nissan, but Nissan and its keiretsu bank are
no longer responsible for extending credit and that spun off company will
now be placed in direct competition with other possible suppliers.

I know that selling off the parts divisions and other holdings have been
profitable for Nissan, but I'm not sure about the rest. For example, sharing
platforms with Renault might mean more business for Nissan , if Nissan makes
the platforms. But it might mean Nissan has to shed even more workers if it
neither makes the shared platforms but is expected to pay US levels of
dividends to shareholders (the number one being Renault).


Charles Jannuzi

Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Michael Perelman]

Sabri must have looked at my office.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:43:10PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote:
> > Shut them down, too.  -- JD
> >
> >> Well, Ian wants to close the business schools
> >> and I want to shut down economics departments.
> >> What do you all think of Anthropology?
> >>
> >> Gene
> 
> How about shutting the entire academe down. The current condition
> of academe is a complete mess. It is like an "object oriented"
> program that screwed up so badly that there is no point of
> "deriving new classes" from the already existing "parent
> classes". Maybe we can make a fresh start for the better.
> 
> Sabri
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

> Shut them down, too.  -- JD
>
>> Well, Ian wants to close the business schools
>> and I want to shut down economics departments.
>> What do you all think of Anthropology?
>>
>> Gene

How about shutting the entire academe down. The current condition
of academe is a complete mess. It is like an "object oriented"
program that screwed up so badly that there is no point of
"deriving new classes" from the already existing "parent
classes". Maybe we can make a fresh start for the better.

Sabri

RE: Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Devine, James]

Shut them down, too.  -- JD

-Original Message-
From: Eugene Coyle
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 4/17/02 7:06 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:25087] Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down
economics
departments.  What do you all think of Anthropology?

Gene 

Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Eugene Coyle]

Well, Ian wants to close the business schools and I want to shut down economics
departments.  What do you all think of Anthropology?

Gene

Ian Murray wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:30 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:25023] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
>
> > Michael writes:
> >
> > > You are absolutely correct.
> > >
> > > "Devine, James" wrote:
> > >
> > >> My impression is that Williamson studies non-market
> > >> institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies
> > >> are a good thing.
> >
> > I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions
> > but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told
> > me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical
> > and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of
> > capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms.
> >
> > Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word "democracy" as
> > he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business
> > world:
> >
> > "We are a business, we are not a democracy!"
> >
> > Here is another one:
> >
> > "We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and
> > good comes out of it!"
> >
> > More or less, that is, as far as I recall.
> >
> > Sabri
>
> 
>
> Would that Williamson and his fellow apologists do some actual economic
> anthropology and sign up for a stint as a mail room clerk or executive assistant,
> a cosmetics salesperson or an air traffic controller or load trucks or be a school
> bus driver to see how accurately their categories, narratives and explanations map
> the actual lobotomizing practices of today's big firms.
>
> Business administration depts. are the breeding grounds for authoritarian,
> autocratic personalities and they ought to be dismantled and rolled into those
> remaining departments  that could teach them something about democracy and
> manners
>
> Ian

Re: Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Ian Murray]

There's a bit of the TC approach in John Commons as well..

Ian
- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:07 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:25027] Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism


> Transactions cost economics -- this will be brief after 6 hours of
> classes, 2 hours at the gym -- starts with Ronald Coase, who explains that
> firms arise to minimize the cost of negotiating via markets, say by
> writing a contract with specific requirements.  Robertson refered to firms
> as islands of planning.  But planning gets unwieldy if the organization
> gets too big, so socialism is a no-no.
> 
> Williamson was at Carnegie, where he picked up a great deal from Herbert
> Simon about dealing with uncertainty, but then he rejected Simon later.
>  -- 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Michael Perelman]

Transactions cost economics -- this will be brief after 6 hours of
classes, 2 hours at the gym -- starts with Ronald Coase, who explains that
firms arise to minimize the cost of negotiating via markets, say by
writing a contract with specific requirements.  Robertson refered to firms
as islands of planning.  But planning gets unwieldy if the organization
gets too big, so socialism is a no-no.

Williamson was at Carnegie, where he picked up a great deal from Herbert
Simon about dealing with uncertainty, but then he rejected Simon later.
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

Jim writes on Williamson:

> I concluded that there was basic conflict between
> capitalists and workers at the center of his theory.
> Capitalists were striving to attain the collective
> good for all that worked for the corporation, while
> disgruntled workers were mere free riders, undermining
> the collective good.

Interesting. This means, I was a free rider then, but luckily, as
the CEO of my current one man company, I am a happy capitalist
striving for the collective good of all. I am proud or what?

I guess there is a serious theoretical problem here but hey!

However, what is more interesting is his recognition of the
"basic conflict between capitalists and workers". I guess this is
basically what led me to conclude that he doesn't know how
Marxist he is, based on my "intuition" and what I heard from him.

Can Jim or anyone else who knows about "transaction costs
economics" give a summary of what it is?

Best
Sabri

Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:30 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:25023] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism


> Michael writes:
>
> > You are absolutely correct.
> >
> > "Devine, James" wrote:
> >
> >> My impression is that Williamson studies non-market
> >> institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies
> >> are a good thing.
>
> I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions
> but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told
> me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical
> and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of
> capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms.
>
> Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word "democracy" as
> he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business
> world:
>
> "We are a business, we are not a democracy!"
>
> Here is another one:
>
> "We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and
> good comes out of it!"
>
> More or less, that is, as far as I recall.
>
> Sabri



Would that Williamson and his fellow apologists do some actual economic
anthropology and sign up for a stint as a mail room clerk or executive assistant,
a cosmetics salesperson or an air traffic controller or load trucks or be a school
bus driver to see how accurately their categories, narratives and explanations map
the actual lobotomizing practices of today's big firms.

Business administration depts. are the breeding grounds for authoritarian,
autocratic personalities and they ought to be dismantled and rolled into those
remaining departments  that could teach them something about democracy and
manners

Ian

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

Michael writes:

> You are absolutely correct.
>
> "Devine, James" wrote:
>
>> My impression is that Williamson studies non-market
>> institutions in order to show that corporate hierarchies
>> are a good thing.

I don't know whether he studies market or non-market institutions
but other than that what Jim said was more or less what he told
me or what I recall from the things he told me: hierarchical
and/or centralized forms of governance for the institutions of
capitalism are/can be better than other organizational forms.

Moreover, he had no urge to make use of the word "democracy" as
he was making his claims. As I heard many times in the business
world:

"We are a business, we are not a democracy!"

Here is another one:

"We are not in the business of doing good. We do business and
good comes out of it!"

More or less, that is, as far as I recall.

Sabri

Re: RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[michael perelman]

You are absolutely correct.

"Devine, James" wrote:

> My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to
> show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. 

-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Devine, James]

Sabri writes:>There is an interesting book by Oliver Williamson that I
bought a while ago but have not read yet. It is entitled something like
"Institutions of Capitalism" or some such name. He is the founder of this
"transaction costs economics" and will most likely receive a Noble [sic!]
Prize in the next few years. I met him a few times in some social gatherings
as a matter of coincidence and had a chance to chat with him on the topic,
although I must confess what he explained was way above my head. Read it,
and if I understood anything from Oliver, you will see that Gunder Frank is
right in that, Oliver doesn't know how Marxist he is. <

My impression is that Williamson studies non-market institutions in order to
show that corporate hierarchies are a good thing. One of his arguments is
that other forms of organization lack the single-mindedness of a corporation
(referring to the profit-seeking lust that they have). When I read his stuff
years ago -- in preparing an article that Michael Reich and I got published
in the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLTIICAL ECONOMICS -- I concluded that there was a
basic conflict between capitalists and workers at the center of his theory.
Capitalists were striving to attain the collective good for all that worked
for the corporation, while disgruntled workers were mere free riders,
undermining the collective good. But maybe I mushed his views up with some
of the other orthodox authors. 
JD

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

> CB: Is this corporate hierarchy a bureaucracy too ?

Sure Charles. This one is bureaucracy at its worst. Do you have
any doubts? If you do, I strongly recommend that you seek
employment with, say, Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Barclays
Global Investors, Merrill Lynch Investment Management, Putnam
Investment Management, PIMCO and the like. Just try it, if you
get the job, you will see what I mean.

Sabri

P.S: We are talking about organizational forms, Charles. This has
nothing to do with the "objectives" of the organizations, however
"well"/"bad" meaning they may be. There is an interesting book by
Oliver Williamson that I bought a while ago but have not read
yet. It is entitled something like "Institutions of Capitalism"
or some such name. He is the founder of this "transaction costs
economics" and will most likely receive a Noble Prize in the next
few years. I met him a few times in some social gatherings as a
matter of coincidence and had a chance to chat with him on the
topic, although I must confess what he explained was way above my
head. Read it, and if I understood anything from Oliver, you will
see that Gunder Frank is right in that, Oliver doesn't know how
Marxist he is.

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Charles Brown]

 Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
by Sabri Oncu
16 April 2002 04:49 UTC



They were the ones who possessed the centralized power. They are
not gone because we, who worked under them, way below the
corporate hierarchy, 

^^^

CB: Is this corporate hierarchy a bureaucracy too ?

^


had no means to say: "Fuck you!" When you
sign up for a financial corporation, or any corporation for that
matter, you accept the hierarchy that comes with it and know that
you need to give them a 15 day notice before you leave but they
can get rid of you any time of their choosing.

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Charles Brown]

Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
by miychi
15 April 2002 21:34 UTC  


> 
1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism




Charles: As Lenin was a dialectician, we can be sure that these opposites are to be 
treated in both their unity and opposition, as you do below. Basically it is a way of 
relating the masses and their leaders for struggle and for long term operation of the 
country.

^^^

a correct reading of Lenin $B!G (Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a
binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization
of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local
sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the
party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function
and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party
democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of
leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in
other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form.


^^^

CB: Definitely, democratic centralism is to be treated in a historically concrete 
manner. Thus, the unity of democracy and centralism in the Venezuelan Bolivarian 
movement is unique. 


What do you think of the operation of the principle of democratic centralism in 
Venezuela as we have learned of the events there ?

^

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

> And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT?
> Who was the fool who assigned her the task of
> search and implementation?  Why are they not
> gone?
>
> Ian

They were the ones who possessed the centralized power. They are
not gone because we, who worked under them, way below the
corporate hierarchy, had no means to say: "Fuck you!" When you
sign up for a financial corporation, or any corporation for that
matter, you accept the hierarchy that comes with it and know that
you need to give them a 15 day notice before you leave but they
can get rid of you any time of their choosing.

By the way, it is not that I had not tried to stop this
foolishness. I tried to convince some friends that if we stick
together and rise up collectively, we could stop all that shit
but they thought I was crazy. They told me that this is not  the
way businesses work in the US. If you rise up collectively, they
get rid off you immediately, they said. Those fools never
understood that although the ones with the centralized power
could get rid of us one by one as individuals, they cannot get
rid off all of us at once, for otherwise they would have no
subjects to exercise their power on, or to put it differently in
this context, to exploit for profits.

How could I have convinced those fools to say no to power. After
all, this the US, the land of opportunities, freedom, democracy,
etc. Is it not?

I guess I gave enough reasons for why I hate centralized power
this much.

Sabri

Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey Ian,
>
> In the world of finance, what you said is called "saving ass" or
> "ass saving", depending on which one you like more. If you are
> someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of
> responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to
> point fingers at them to save your own "ass". This is why it is
> called "ass saving" in those circles. It doesn't work forever
> though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so
> badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have
> witnessed many, many times.
>
> Here is a fictitious story which covers not just "ass saving" but
> also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing
> called out-sourcing:
>
> Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that
> manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide
> risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor
> their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them
> when there is a screw up.
>
> Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at
> this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director,
> suppose that this person has no idea about "modern portfolio
> theory", so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and
> cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity
> of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk
> management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic
> processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all
> that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes
> of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is.
>
> So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of
> course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management
> goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and
> naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she
> saves her "ass" but since she is still in trouble, she this time
> hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less
> idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to
> manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say,
> after a year. By firing them, she saves her "ass" once again but
> since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle.
>
> Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too?
>
> And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her
> escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up.
>
> For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of
> the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the
> way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm
> from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or,
> should we say, stupidity.
>
> Best,
> Sabri

===

And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT? Who was the fool who assigned her the
task of search and implementation  ? Why are they not gone?

Ian

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

> To protect the leadership. It's called the musical
> chairs theory of unaccountability.
>
> Ian

Hey Ian,

In the world of finance, what you said is called "saving ass" or
"ass saving", depending on which one you like more. If you are
someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of
responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to
point fingers at them to save your own "ass". This is why it is
called "ass saving" in those circles. It doesn't work forever
though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so
badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have
witnessed many, many times.

Here is a fictitious story which covers not just "ass saving" but
also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing
called out-sourcing:

Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that
manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide
risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor
their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them
when there is a screw up.

Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at
this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director,
suppose that this person has no idea about "modern portfolio
theory", so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and
cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity
of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk
management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic
processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all
that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes
of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is.

So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of
course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management
goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and
naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she
saves her "ass" but since she is still in trouble, she this time
hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less
idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to
manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say,
after a year. By firing them, she saves her "ass" once again but
since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle.

Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too?

And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her
escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up.

For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of
the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the
way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm
from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or,
should we say, stupidity.

Best,
Sabri

Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:24950] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism


> Miyachi wrote:
>
> > From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of
> > centralization of power is not considered as a pair
> > of centralization of leadership and decentralization
> > of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership
> > has been put forward.
>
> Dear Miyachi,
>
> I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the
> world: US financial corporations. They talked about
> centralization of leadership and decentralization of
> responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial
> corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial
> corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without
> authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had,
> where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make
> decisions.
>
> What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who
> are responsible have no ability to make decisions?
>
> Best,
> Sabri
=

To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of
unaccountability.

Ian

Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[Sabri Oncu]

Miyachi wrote:

> From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of
> centralization of power is not considered as a pair
> of centralization of leadership and decentralization
> of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership
> has been put forward.

Dear Miyachi,

I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the
world: US financial corporations. They talked about
centralization of leadership and decentralization of
responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial
corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial
corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without
authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had,
where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make
decisions.

What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who
are responsible have no ability to make decisions?

Best,
Sabri

.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[miychi]

On 2002.04.17 02:30 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>>  
> 
> G'day Charles,
> 
>> Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in
>> Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses  and their elected
>> representatives in the CENTER !  Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism !
> 
> Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're
> watching different Venezuelas.  Or both.
> 
>> So much for bloody , middle class,  fake democracy.
>>  
> 
> Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob.
> 
1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

a correct reading of Lenin$B!G(Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a
binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization
of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local
sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the
party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function
and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party
democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of
leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in
other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form.
 When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to
make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a
$B!H(Jword$B!I(J of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and
directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and
command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against
centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway
its power.
 What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible
centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all
the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible
decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections
in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of
responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a
medal.
 From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is
not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and
decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership
has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as $B!H(J command from 
above$B!I(J
, and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership
becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative
direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from
the binary scheme of democracy and centralism.
 we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization
of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand
there should be $B!H(J the smallest number of the most homogenous group of
professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks
-V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many
elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as
possible. On the other side$B!I(J the greatest number of the most diverse and
heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and
other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements
and bear the responsibilities to the Party.
 In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should
give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works
to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership
should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the
Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the
obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership).
Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and
other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible.
 This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle
of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of
the Party. Lenin speaks, $B!H(J the ideology of the centrism shows in principle
how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail$B!I(J(One
Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and $B!H(J an
ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should
determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,)
  Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the
party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done
or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual
plan of organization. Centralism 

.On Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

[miychi]

1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism

a correct reading of Lenin$B!G(Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a
binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization
of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local
sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the
party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function
and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party
democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of
leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in
other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form.
 When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to
make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a
$B!H(Jword$B!I(J of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and
directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and
command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against
centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway
its power.
 What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible
centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all
the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible
decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections
in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of
responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a
medal.
 From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is
not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and
decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership
has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as $B!H(J command from 
above$B!I(J
, and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership
becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative
direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from
the binary scheme of democracy and centralism.
 we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization
of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand
there should be $B!H(J the smallest number of the most homogenous group of
professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks
-V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many
elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as
possible. On the other side$B!I(J the greatest number of the most diverse and
heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and
other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements
and bear the responsibilities to the Party.
 In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should
give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works
to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership
should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the
Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the
obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership).
Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and
other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible.
 This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle
of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of
the Party. Lenin speaks, $B!H(J the ideology of the centrism shows in principle
how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail$B!I(J(One
Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and $B!H(J an
ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should
determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,)
  Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the
party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done
or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual
plan of organization. Centralism is the principle of the party organization
which determine the party organization and works at any time and place as
long as it should be a Party of Communists. It should not be understood in
the limit of the national specialty of Russia or the historical period of
Lenin. only the forms or the way in which centralism is accomplished can be
changed to the various historical conditions.

2. relation of inner-party democracy to centralism
 
 while centralism is the principle of the party organization,
inner-party democracy is, for Lenin. a form and means, in which centralism
is realized and which is determined by the historical and definite
conditions. Concerning the introduction of democracy in