[PEN-L:6988] Exploitation in progressive organisations
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:6987] Fwd: Re: exploitation in progressive organizations? (was re:aiusa) 2. (...) to have the same goals as the organization, something profit making businesses do not expect. As a plain old worker in a company, you are expected to give a certain amount of labor per dollar, but not necessarily have the same goals as the CEO. Sure? I certainly agree with Maggie's recent postings on this issue, which only helps to emphasize the need that folks in the 'left' keep *always* in mind, that i) we need power to get through to a better world and that ii) power is not 'mine', but belongs to (not only relies on) the unprotected and exploited. Me, as Maggie, have seen it very often (though not always, of course, I am not a pessimistic...) that 'politically correct' folks, as soon as they get a bit of power, they forget (or close an eye to) both i) what is this power for and ii) to whom this power belongs.. BUT, I wouldn't dare to say that private corporations and the capitalis society as a whole does not ask their workers to adhere to the goals and values of the corporation/society... Of course they do!! Maybe, there are other kind of experiences..., but is that the 'common pattern'??? I mean, also for plain workers, as subtle the interioration of values as it may be, it does exist. And, moreover, plain and not plain workers who do not share the values and goals, who do not repeat 'we' when they are referring to the organisation they work for, who do not conceed a great deal of idolatrisation to their bosses, who do not manifest that they are 'glad' to get their income thanks to the jobs offered by the organisation, who do not dress as expected, who do not 'socialize' following the norms of behaviour, etc., etc., they are little by little marginalised, and eventually either they are fired or at the end they resign out of exhaustation... (the latter, if I may say, is the recurrent experience of my wife over the last five years or so...) What makes a difference, and I understand that is Maggie what was implicitly referring to in #2 of her last posting, is that in a private (or at least non-non-profit) organisation it is more straightforward -and immediate?- to unionise. And *if* the union succeeds in represeenting the workers, and *if* the union does not end up patronising and adopting the same values of the organisation, *then* the plain worker can be more independently minded. But that independence of mind is -for the very little I know- becoming more and more scarse... One more thing that adds to the challenge we have ahead. Salud, Alex. Alex Izurieta E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Institute of Social Studies P.O. Box 29776 2502 LT The Hague Tel. 31-70-4260480 Fax. 31-70-4260.755 4260.799
[PEN-L:6990] Re: krugman again
At 6:56 PM 10/28/96, Ajit Sinha wrote: At 09:10 AM 10/28/96 -0800, you (Doug Henwood) wrote: (as if, among other things, there weren't critiques of decon from the left for being the essentially conservative thing it is). __ And why is that? Could you elaborate a bit? Enquiring minds want to know. Well, I'm reading - intermittently - Teresa Ebert's book Ludic Feminism and After (excellent in content, but she writes in that awful English department way), and she goes into these issues in great depth, from a Marxist-feminist viewpoint. I'll just say this: decon/pomo, in its canonical form, tends to ignore social and material reality, training its focus instead on the world of "discourse." Those pomos/decons who still feel some loyalties to the old verities try to have it both ways by making "discourse" into a material force, but it ain't really. This focus on "discourse" is basically old idealism dressed up in fancy new clothes, just as lots of multiculturalism is pluralism decked out in snazzy threads. For some reason, I've just been reading Baudrillard's absurd book, The Transparency of Evil. To B., the political economy of the "sign" has replaced the p.e. of value. In a passage emblematic of a whole strand of pomo thinking, he writes: "But Marx simply did not foresee that it would be possible for capital, in the face of the imminent threat to its existence, to transpoliticize itself, as it were: to launch itself into an orbit beyond the relations of production and political contradictions, to make itself autonomous in a free-floating, ecstatic and haphazard form, and thus to totalize the world in its own image. Capital (if it still may be so called) has barred the way of political economy and the law of value; it is in this sense that it has successfully escaped its own end. Henceforward it can function independently of its own former aims, and absolutely without reference to any aims whatever." Yeah, right. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6991] a sign of value?
Doug Henwood wrote: For some reason, I've just been reading Baudrillard's absurd book, The Transparency of Evil. To B., the political economy of the "sign" has replaced the p.e. of value. But, Doug: I thought you rejected value theory. Is that a sign that you have something in common with Baudrillard? Jerry
[PEN-L:6992] Re: a sign of value?
At 7:38 AM 10/29/96, Gerald Levy wrote: But, Doug: I thought you rejected value theory. Is that a sign that you have something in common with Baudrillard? One more time, slowly, so even you can understand, Jerry. Value is a concept, a way of thinking about a social relation. What I object to is the attempt to put numbers on it, to do Marxian econometrics with it. On this issue, I'm entirely with Keynes, who wrote this to Harrod: "[E]conomics is a branch of logic, a way of thinking; and that you do not repel sufficiently firmly attempts a la Schultz to turn it into a pseudo-natural science [I]t is of the essence of a model that one does not fill in real values for the variable functions. To do so would make it useless as a model. For as soon as this is done, the model loses its generality and its value as a mode of thought." Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6993] Re: a sign of value?
Doug Henwood wrote: Value is a concept, a way of thinking about a social relation. What I object to is the attempt to put numbers on it, to do Marxian econometrics with it. How can value *only* have a qualitative dimension? By ignoring the quantitative dimension and the value-form, value itself is reduced to a metaphor or indeed a "sign." Jerry
[PEN-L:6994] Re: krugman again
If he is indeed the emperor of the new economic geography, then he is an emperor who has no clothes. I completely agree. Krugman (like Michael Porter and other business school guys) think that they are genius and they pretend as if they discover everything new. Moreover, they undermine all studies which don't fit into neo- or new-classical economic jargon and don't have abstract mathematical models!. When I am first exposed to the economic geography literature a year ago, everybody was talking Krugman. But by time, I noticed that there is a huge literature on regional science(a main literature referring to economic geography, regional economics, urban economics,..). Most of them are from 1950s and 1960s, and they are ignored in the mainstream economics (since it did disturb their nice world of equilibrium, constant returns, ..). Now, the crisis of neoclassical economics make these people to incorporate some of the real life issues in such a fashion that will enhance the static neoclassical framework without any problem in general premises. And as they are famous and popular!, their work becomes a fashion!. the real emperors of the economic geography are already forgotten. What an unjustice world. in solidarity, dilek cetindamar karaomerlioglu
[PEN-L:6995] Re: Fwd: Re: AI unionbuster?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand the transposition of my comments from private progressive organizations to a public sphere. I think the characteristics of the two sectors are quite different. The public sphere is highly unionized, and monitored by a phalanx of civil service rules. These help control exploitation in the work place. I think the problem with private 'progressive' organizations, as well as unions, is that they see exploitation outside their organization as an issue to fight over while they turn a blind eye to the exploitation of their own labor force. I think progressives and unions should be brought to task and made to provide the same protections against over exploitation, and the same respect, for their own employees as they demand for union members they represent or issues they work on. My point is that it is very difficult to conceive of how an organizational form can promote good (disinterested, humane, fair, competent, etc.) behavior among those in authority. Your distinctions between public sector and progressive org are well-taken, though the difference may have more to do with small and large than public and prog-org; in other words, employees will win more protection when there are more of them in one place, and progressive organizations tend to be small. In any case, the personnel regs you cite are a small part of the mission of public organizations. Here in D.C. we have the spectacle of fairly strong personnel regulations and grossly inferior performance by the city government. The inevitability of human nature is too strong to be overcome by mere changes in political party or organizational change that is not ingenious (and hence rare and difficult). Tom Walker wrote: Perhaps the long losing streak of the left and labour comes from the widespread abandonment of a politics of free time in favour of the politics of the welfare state. My own quirky reading of history (along with a few books I've read) tells me that the welfare state began as a conservative institution to defend the state against revolutionary threats and succeeded in recruiting to its defense the bulk of the radicals whose original argument was for the abolition of the state. Me: You could characterize this as said radicals coming around to the realization that the welfare state in some form or other was the best that could be hoped for. TW: This is not to say that there are no 'proper limits' to a politics of free time, either. On the contrary, proper limits are what may make free time a *politics* rather than an beguiling, empty slogan. Me: I guess I should explore your web site more because I'm not clear on what the politics of free time is about. If it's 'thirty for forty,' then a raft of economic doubts, or issues, at least, come into play. Work sharing is a different, more plausible matter, though I'm not persuaded that it is of such great importance as to be a 'politics' all by itself. Re: Naiman All the issues he raises are well-taken, but the irreducible fact is that people get screwed in progressive organizations. If it could be documented -- which I doubt, on feasibility grounds -- that such things happen much less frequently than in non-prog orgs, that would be nice to report, but the contrast between rhetoric and untoward events is so stark that it will always be a political problem -- and the bigger prog orgs get the more we will hear about this stuff. J. Devine: While I agree that there should be limits on the size of the "public sector" (i.e., the central government), it's important to remember that there are other ways of attaining socialist goals (and, more generally, of attaining collective goals) than just government. In fact, the overemphasis on the central government has been a major flaw in both social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist thought. I've been convinced of the last point since I started working near the Federal government -- liberals and the left are too absorbed in the central government, as if the US was like France. Besides central government, ways of attaining collective goals include tradition and decentralized, grassroots, democracy. (For But to me that's still government and collective decision-making. There's a long-standing debate about whether the potential for corruption is greater at the local level than elsewhere. ideological reasons, the last is left out of Econ. textbooks, including, surprisingly, that of Bowles and Edwards.) Clearly, tradition won't serve socialist goals (and anyway, capitalism abhors, undermines, and destroys tradition). But decentralized democracy (worker co-ops, community co-ops, etc.) have been central to alternatives to social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist statism. The old US Socialist Labor Party (is it still around?) The SLP will never die. These are fine things as far as they go, which has never been very. You must be aware that coops and labor-managed
[PEN-L:6997] Re: IP and Ispat
Regarding a couple of topics from unamerican activities day: Bill M(ate) might be interested in knowing that Ireland currently has a system of tripartite wage bargaining between employers federations, the trade union congress and the government. Interestingly, this explicitly includes levels of taxation and incidence, as well as issues of social policy. The Irish National Organization of the Unemployed has recently been admitted to the talks as representative of its constituency. Despite very high growth rates (exact figures are controversial due to multinationals engaging in transfer pricing, but it is now evident that growth rates have been phenomenal here), there is no appreciable inflation. This supports Bill's point about the relation between inflation and unemployment (though unemployment is still very high here). Ispat purchased Irish steel, a publicly owned, heavily subsidized and bankrupt corporation. It's price reflected considerable pre-crisis devalorization (presumably Jim D would approve of this term) and its privatization allowed considerable downsizing which was not as possible under public ownership. This goes some way to answering Anthony De C's question. Interestingly nobody on the left opposed this privatization as the plant was clearly a lemon socialism type embarrassment. I wondered whether a transfer to worker ownership would not have been the best solution, but no such proposal emerged from the union, indicating perhaps that the workers didn't want it. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:6999] Re: exploitation in progressive organizations
Collective bargaining type models don't work well in progressive org's because the org shouldn't be using its powerful position as an employer in the bargaining process. Similarly, the social consciousness and personalized relationships of the org can be abused by employees. In one I was involved with one employee was pressured out because he refused to work unlimited hours on a part time contract in order to spend time with his family. Conversely another employee drew a substantial child allowance despite the fact that the child's mother had abducted the child years before and he had no idea even where the child was. These problems can be avoided as regards pay anyway by adopting benchmarks like some unions do, paying officials no more than the highest paid member. The national median wage/salary might be a reasonable upper limit for non-union constituency or issue type organizations. Employee unions would still be needed to bargain over working conditions. I had a good friend working for a national El Salvador solidarity organization who was forced to fill out time sheets accounting for his activities in five minute blocks! It seems Lenin wasn't the only left admirer of Taylorism. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:7000] Politics of free time (reply to Max Sawicky)
I guess I should explore your web site more because I'm not clear on what the politics of free time is about. If it's 'thirty for forty,' then a raft of economic doubts, or issues, at least, come into play. Work sharing is a different, more plausible matter, though I'm not persuaded that it is of such great importance as to be a 'politics' all by itself. By all means explore my web site more, I'd also recommend the following for more comprehensive theoretical and historical discussion: - Andre Gorz, _Critique of Economic Reason_, Verso, 1989. - David Roediger and Philip Foner, _Our Own Time: A History of American Labor and the Working Day_, Greenwood Press, 1989. - Benjamin Hunnicutt, _Work Without End: Abandoning Shorter Hours for the Right to Work_, Temple University Press, 1988. Roediger and Foner argue "The length of the workdays... has historically been the central issue raised by the American labor movement during its most dynamic periods of organization". 'Thirty for forty' is a slogan, not a politics. As for 'economic doubts', I can't agree that political controversies -- even when posed as economic issues -- are typically resolved by feasibility studies or cost/benefit analyses. Again, I'll return to my argument that perhaps the long losing streak of the left stems from its virtual abandonment of the working time issue. May I add a footnote that could open a whole can of worms: In volume one of Capital, Marx, distinguishes between the extraction of absolute surplus value, achieved by the lengthening of the working day and relative surplus value, achieved by lowering the costs of reproducing labour power. These two methods of extracting surplus value correspond to two historically distinctive stages in the organization of the labour process, which Marx labels "Manufacture" and "Modern Industry" (or, in a previously unpublished chapter, included as an appendix to the Vintage translation: the Formal and Real Subsumption of Labour to Capital). To make a very long story short: I would argue that current changes in the organization of the labour process (flexible manufacture, contingent workforces, etc.) strive toward a unique combination of absolute and relative surplus value. So the length of the working day is not simply an important issue, it is the central issue for a progressive politics. Regards, Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:7001] Alternatives to Herfindahl Index
Does anyone know of any alternative/unconventional (but reasonable) measures of market concentration other than the Herfindahl Index? Also: how does one access the Pen-l archive? Thanks, Jason Hecht
[PEN-L:7002] Re: Politics of free time (reply to Max Sawicky)
Labor Notes also has a new pamphlet out on this. I think it's called _Our Time_. I leafed through it and it looked pretty good. Their address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, Tavis On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Tom Walker wrote: By all means explore my web site more, I'd also recommend the following for more comprehensive theoretical and historical discussion: - Andre Gorz, _Critique of Economic Reason_, Verso, 1989. - David Roediger and Philip Foner, _Our Own Time: A History of American Labor and the Working Day_, Greenwood Press, 1989. - Benjamin Hunnicutt, _Work Without End: Abandoning Shorter Hours for the Right to Work_, Temple University Press, 1988. Roediger and Foner argue "The length of the workdays... has historically been the central issue raised by the American labor movement during its most dynamic periods of organization". 'Thirty for forty' is a slogan, not a politics. As for 'economic doubts', I can't agree that political controversies -- even when posed as economic issues -- are typically resolved by feasibility studies or cost/benefit analyses. Again, I'll return to my argument that perhaps the long losing streak of the left stems from its virtual abandonment of the working time issue. May I add a footnote that could open a whole can of worms: In volume one of Capital, Marx, distinguishes between the extraction of absolute surplus value, achieved by the lengthening of the working day and relative surplus value, achieved by lowering the costs of reproducing labour power. These two methods of extracting surplus value correspond to two historically distinctive stages in the organization of the labour process, which Marx labels "Manufacture" and "Modern Industry" (or, in a previously unpublished chapter, included as an appendix to the Vintage translation: the Formal and Real Subsumption of Labour to Capital). To make a very long story short: I would argue that current changes in the organization of the labour process (flexible manufacture, contingent workforces, etc.) strive toward a unique combination of absolute and relative surplus value. So the length of the working day is not simply an important issue, it is the central issue for a progressive politics. Regards, Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:7003] Re: Alternatives to Herfindahl Index
Does anyone know of any alternative/unconventional (but reasonable) measures of market concentration other than the Herfindahl Index? some suggestions: consider i= industry s= PMSA SUMs = summation over PMSA s CONi=concentration of industry i EMPis Employment of industry i at PMSA s; then concentration can be calculated by one of the followings: a) CONi=100 - ½* [SUMs abs[(SUMs EMPis / SUMi SUMs EMPis )-(EMPis / SUMi EMPis )] b) CONi= SUMi [(SUMs EMPis / SUMi SUMs EMPis ) - SUMs EMPis/n] square / [1-SUMi SUMs (EMPis/n) square ] c) Gini coefficient = 0.5 * [1 - (SUMs EMPis / SUMi SUMs EMPis ) * (Qs + Qs-1 )] Qs is the cumulative share of the first s PMSAs total employment. hope, it is helpful. salud, dilek cetindamar karaomerlioglu
[PEN-L:7005] job listing
Please let potentially interested candidates know about this opportunity. We are a small department that emphasizes excellent teaching. We prize quality of, and commitment to, teaching and scholarly activity over adherence to any particular orthodoxy. For more information, please contact me privately. The University of Southern Maine Economics Department seeks to fill a tenure-track position at the assistant level beginning September 1997. The successful applicant will teach intermediate microeconomic theory, research methods, an applied microeconomics course (e.g., urban, regional, health, education, comparative systems, etc.) and introductory courses. We seek candidates who are genuinely committed to excellence in undergraduate teaching in a collegial environment. We encourage candidates who have interdisciplinary interests and who are committed to helping students prepare to function effectively in a culturally and ethnically diverse society. Required: Ph.D. in Economics (or closely related field) and a strong interest in applied research. Salary will be competitive. We will begin to evaluate applications and schedule interviews for the New Orleans ASSA Meetings on December 1, 1996. Position pending approval of funding. Please send cover letter, curriculum vitae, the names/addresses/telephone numbers of three references, and evidence of successful teaching to: Search Committee, RE:206 Department of Economics University of Southern Maine PO Box 9300, Portland, ME 04104-9300. USM is an EEO/AA employer committed to diversity, equality and reasonable accommodation. Joseph E Medley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Economics University of Southern Maine Portland, ME 04104-9300 (207) 780-4293 fax: (207) 780-5507
[PEN-L:7004] Re: Politics of free time
Tom Walker wrote: Roediger and Foner argue "The length of the workdays... has historically been the central issue raised by the American labor movement during its most dynamic periods of organization". That may be true, but there is some controversy among labor historians regarding how movements such as the "10 hour day" and the "8 hour day" are to be interpreted. One school emphasizes the primary slogan of the 8 hr. day movement: "8 hours for work, 8 hours for sleep, 8 hours for what we will." From that perspective, the demand for leisure time was central. Another interpretation stresses the connection between hours of work and employment in the presence of labor-displacing technological change. I think that much more evidence supports the former interpretation. 'Thirty for forty' is a slogan, not a politics. It was both a slogan and a demand -- primarily of CIO unions. It can be a demand in collective bargaining or a political demand. Clearly, there are many instances of slogans which were part of political movements. Again, I'll return to my argument that perhaps the long losing streak of the left stems from its virtual abandonment of the working time issue. I'm not sure what you mean by the "left" here. Clearly, many groups on the left still have short workweek slogans. However, it is the unions which have -- with few exceptions -- given up the demand for a short workweek. One of the clearest examples of this was the 1982 concessionary GM-UAW agreement which eliminated the Paid Personal Holidays (PPH) program -- which, interestingly, had been negotiated by Walter Reuther as a "step" towards a short workweek. After the contract was ratified (by slightly over 50% and under 51%) about 3,000 workers were laid-off because of that concession. To make a very long story short: I would argue that current changes in the organization of the labour process (flexible manufacture, contingent workforces, etc.) strive toward a unique combination of absolute and relative surplus value. So the length of the working day is not simply an important issue, it is the central issue for a progressive politics. How do these technologies increase absolute surplus value, i.e. an increase in the length of the working day? Jerry
[PEN-L:7006] Re: pol econ PhD programs
If you don't mind first completing a very standard core of macro/micro etc., I would recommend looking into UC Riverside. Howard Sherman, Gary Dymski, Steve Cullenberg, Bob Pollin, Victor Lippit, Ronald Chilcote (and others) are just some of the people you can work with in political economy. Keith Griffin is here too if you have an interest in development. We have an active seminar series, and as far as I know, are the only econ department in the US with its own swimming pool. I could probably refer you to a more advanced student (I'm a little first year) if you have specific questions. Cheers, John Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Steele, Jen wrote: I've been looking for a PhD program with an interdisiplinary approach, combining (radical/intl/comparative) political economy, gender and labor studies.The New School's economics program looks great, but I've heard they can't offer much financial support. What advice does PEN-L have on the subject?
[PEN-L:7008] rising profit rate?
Alejandro Valle Baeza writes that: I think that Dumenil et al showed that rate of profit is falling in the long run in the US economy. The last book that Alejandro cites Dumenil Levy, The Economics of Profit Rate, does not show a downward trend from 1869 to the present. Rather, the data show a pattern of the following sort: "Considering the trend of the accounting profit rate, th periodization can be stated as follows. A first period is evident from the beginning of the series [1869] up to the 1900s [during which the profit rate falls]. At this point, the tendency is reverse, and the profit rate is progressively augmented from then 1910s to the 1940s. Then a new decline is initiated. This trend begins in 1869 at 39.3 percent, falls to a minimum value of 22.5 percent in 1912; it reaches its maximum in 1951 at 35.5 percent, and then falls back to 25.4 percent in 1989." (p. 256) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:7009] Re: rising profit rate?
Jim: You wouldn't call the period since 1952 [44 years] the "long run"? Given what Dumenil Levy [no relation, I think, JL] write below, isn't Alejandro's quote accurate? Jerry On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alejandro Valle Baeza writes that: I think that Dumenil et al showed that rate of profit is falling in the long run in the US economy. The last book that Alejandro cites Dumenil Levy, The Economics of Profit Rate, does not show a downward trend from 1869 to the present. Rather, the data show a pattern of the following sort: "Considering the trend of the accounting profit rate, th periodization can be stated as follows. A first period is evident from the beginning of the series [1869] up to the 1900s [during which the profit rate falls]. At this point, the tendency is reverse, and the profit rate is progressively augmented from then 1910s to the 1940s. Then a new decline is initiated. This trend begins in 1869 at 39.3 percent, falls to a minimum value of 22.5 percent in 1912; it reaches its maximum in 1951 at 35.5 percent, and then falls back to 25.4 percent in 1989." (p. 256)
[PEN-L:7010] Social Democracy, Co-ops, etc.
Jim Devine writes: But decentralized democracy (worker co-ops, community co-ops, etc.) have been central to alternatives to social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist statism. Comment: Social democratic governments surely are strongly in favor of co-ops. Indeed, provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan when they have had CCF or NDP governments (both social-democratic) have had a dept. of co-operative development and often a minister of co-op development. I do not know what you mean by community co-ops. Are these sixties-type volunteer service co-ops or what? In provinces such as Saskatchewan if you go into any small or medium-sized town the co-op will be the grocery store and usually the bulk petroleum dealer and often the service station as well. The financial institution will be a credit union. The elevator will often be a Co-op or Pool elevator. All wheat is collectively marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board as are some other grains. Social democratic govts. have pushed these developments because that is what their constituency has wanted. THere are also huge producer co-ops, including a giant Dairy producers co-op that is now interprovincial. THere is another huge one in Quebec. These are large organisations run bureaucratically just like their private competitors. The consumer co-ops have their own oil refinery. There are few worker co-ops however, but you can buy brew from a worker-owned brewery thank goodness! None of these developments evolved into anything like socialism. Social democratic governments are not socialist at all. While in the early stages of their development social democratic movements such as the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation ) had a manifesto (the Regina Manifesto) that explicitly has as its goal the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by the Co-operative Commonwealth, the programme was continually watered down both in theory and in practice so that a mixed economy private and public was accepted. The co-operative movement tended to become less radical and just part of the prairie status quo. Labor relations in co-ops are sometimes poor. Members of the co-op get higher patronage refunds if there are lower costs. Many of the members are farmers and many are not all that sympathetic to labor. Credit Unions are certainly better than banks in that surplus is distributed to members on the basis of usage rather than number of shares owned and as with co-ops, one member has only one vote. Co-ops and credit unions and marketing boards, etc. operate in the interest of their members and within a market structure that limits their freedom. They must watch the bottom line just as much as a private bank or store. Often too, members are passive unless there is a crisis. They do not want to be democractically participating they want to get on with their farm work etc. and let managers run the businesses. While co-ops etc. have a role in a socialist society I think that the left's downplaying of the role of public ownership is a huge mistake. Publicly owned companies can operate at a loss and serve social ends that no co-op or private company could possibly do in the marketplace. Alternatively, they may produce a surplus that can be used for social expenditure. Finally, if they operate on a break-even basis, ceteris paribus, will provide services cheaper cheaper than a private firm--since private firms (on the whole) must generate profits. I agree that there must be great public and worker input into the operation of publicly owned corporations. Control by communist planners without any checks and balances was the real problem with public ownership in the USSR and elsewhere. Another difficulty with co-ops is that the interests of co-ops in poorer areas e.g. with agriculture co-ops and those that happen to be located in rich areas may conflict. Unless you have some strong state redistribution how does co-operative ownership solve that sort of problem? I don't see how formal democratic structures lead to socialism although they may be a necessary condition of any acceptable form of socialism. Formal democracy has not led to public control of government, and when elements of formal democratic control are introduced through co-ops etc. it is often not the membership but management that exerts control. As long as the co-op grocery store gives good service, choice, and reasonable prices with a decent patronage refund members are content to let a small group of volunteers serve on the board. Often it may be a problem to find a new board member when one dies or steps down. CHeers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:7011] re: rising profit rate?
Jerry (no known relation to Dominique) Levy asks: Jim: You wouldn't call the period since 1952 [44 years] the "long run"? Given what Dumenil Levy ... write ..., isn't Alejandro's quote accurate? I don't know what exactly Alejandro was saying (and I do not want to argue with him), but since he cited an article about the trend of the US profit rate since 1869, I assumed he meant that the profit rate had trended down since 1869. Whether or not 44 years is the long run depends on one's frame of reference. That the profit rate trended down since the 1950s is clearly of extreme importance. But then again is the recent revival of profit rates since the 1980s (BTW, D L's series ends in 1989). in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:7012] Progressive orgs and exploitation
I have followed the debate about exploitation in progressive organisations with interest. I think perhaps this also has a parallel with economics - that is, "labour" in government (certainly in recent times) have pursued economically rationalist policies, when in opposition they try to define themselves as offering something "different". So how do we stop unionists behaving like bosses when they become employers and how do we stop "labour" governments implementing economic rationalism? The million dollar question - perhaps the answer lies in the lack of alternative vision? Are there any realistic role models? In a recent casual discussion between union officials around the topic of "unions being bad employers" one bright spark made the comment that "if we can't organise and campaign on behalf of ourselves... The silence that followed was murky indeed! Cheers, Margarita
[PEN-L:7013] Re: Social democracy, co-ops, etc
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]
[PEN-L:7014] Re: exploitation in progressive organizations
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Terrence Mc Donough wrote: Collective bargaining type models don't work well in progressive org's because the org shouldn't be using its powerful position as an employer in the bargaining process. Similarly, the social consciousness and personalized relationships of the org can be abused by employees. * * * Actually, I think the opposite is the case. The organization needs to admit it IS an employer vis a vis these employees and to decide that it wants to be a progressive model of an employer. Instead, what I have observed happens most often is that the organization decides that since it is doing "god's work" it is justified in whatever means it chooses to reach this end. Most often it can succeed, because there are lots of committed folks who are sympathetic with those ends and unwiling to see that they are being exploited by these good people. A lot of this could be avoided if the organizations' leaders would admit that when they have workers they are employers with all the responsibilities that entails. A lot is helped by being honest and clear about positions and interests and responsibilities and rights. This, incidentally, is an important insight of the NLRA: you need to have clear divisions between employers and the employed. This line is something proponents of labor-management cooperation want to erase. When it is erased, then exploitation is far easier. [Sorry not to have discussed the important toothpaste in the US issue, Bill. Next post.] Regards, ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
[PEN-L:7016] Fwd: Exploitation in progressive organisations
I work in a unionized setting, so, it is not necessary for me to adopt the goals of the company I work for. However, it seems that non-union workers, especially those on the fast track up, do need to adopt company goals. I still think, though, that non-profits require a dedication which is not required of non-management employees in profit making enterprises. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Izurieta) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-10-29 03:25:59 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:6987] Fwd: Re: exploitation in progressive organizations? (was re:aiusa) 2. (...) to have the same goals as the organization, something profit making businesses do not expect. As a plain old worker in a company, you are expected to give a certain amount of labor per dollar, but not necessarily have the same goals as the CEO. Sure? I certainly agree with Maggie's recent postings on this issue, which only helps to emphasize the need that folks in the 'left' keep *always* in mind, that i) we need power to get through to a better world and that ii) power is not 'mine', but belongs to (not only relies on) the unprotected and exploited. Me, as Maggie, have seen it very often (though not always, of course, I am not a pessimistic...) that 'politically correct' folks, as soon as they get a bit of power, they forget (or close an eye to) both i) what is this power for and ii) to whom this power belongs.. BUT, I wouldn't dare to say that private corporations and the capitalis society as a whole does not ask their workers to adhere to the goals and values of the corporation/society... Of course they do!! Maybe, there are other kind of experiences..., but is that the 'common pattern'??? I mean, also for plain workers, as subtle the interioration of values as it may be, it does exist. And, moreover, plain and not plain workers who do not share the values and goals, who do not repeat 'we' when they are referring to the organisation they work for, who do not conceed a great deal of idolatrisation to their bosses, who do not manifest that they are 'glad' to get their income thanks to the jobs offered by the organisation, who do not dress as expected, who do not 'socialize' following the norms of behaviour, etc., etc., they are little by little marginalised, and eventually either they are fired or at the end they resign out of exhaustation... (the latter, if I may say, is the recurrent experience of my wife over the last five years or so...) What makes a difference, and I understand that is Maggie what was implicitly referring to in #2 of her last posting, is that in a private (or at least non-non-profit) organisation it is more straightforward -and immediate?- to unionise. And *if* the union succeeds in represeenting the workers, and *if* the union does not end up patronising and adopting the same values of the organisation, *then* the plain worker can be more independently minded. But that independence of mind is -for the very little I know- becoming more and more scarse... One more thing that adds to the challenge we have ahead. Salud, Alex. Alex Izurieta E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Institute of Social Studies P.O. Box 29776 2502 LT The Hague Tel. 31-70-4260480 Fax. 31-70-4260.755 4260.799
[PEN-L:7017] Re: Alternatives to Herfindahl Index
The problem with all indexes measuring market concentration, including Herfindahl, is deciding what makes up a company in an industry. Since the merger and diversification craze of the 1980s, most corporations own pieces of very diverse markets. The other problems with all concentration indexes is the increasingly international nature of many production markets -- especially anything involving new technology. How do you define a market becomes a major issue. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7018] Re: exploitation in progressive organizations
Ellen Dannin wrote: Actually, I think the opposite is the case. The organization needs to admit it IS an employer vis a vis these employees and to decide that it wants to be a progressive model of an employer. Instead, what I have observed happens most often is that the organization decides that since it is doing "god's work" it is justified in whatever means it chooses to reach this end. Most often it can succeed, because there are lots of committed folks who are sympathetic with those ends and unwiling to see that they are being exploited by these good people. I agree with you, Ellen. The management of progressive organizations and trade unions all too frequently believe that "the end justifies the means" re employees. A couple of cases in point: (1) On more that one occasion the members of OPEIU, Local 494, who represent the clerical staff at the UAW's Solidarity House in Detroit went on strike. Members of both the staff and professional departments (who, btw, are also organized in their own union) not only crossed the picket lines to get to work, but *bragged* about it afterwards. I heard some of these International representatives do the bragging. (2) At a "Labor College", there were *mass* firings in 1985-86 of faculty (and later, support staff) by a "progressive" Dean (who was sympathetic to the CPUSA). Most of the faculty fired were members of the Black and Latino Caucus. Basically ... to make a *long* story short ... most of these faculty were fired by this tyrannical dean (and his management cohorts) for being "troublemakers", i.e. complaining about working conditions and discrimination. Afterwards, *of course*, these faculty were labeled as "disgruntled former employees." In general, I find this whole phenomena to be fascinating from a sociological perspective. The evidence seems to suggest that management is management is management regardless of their alleged progressive or radical perspectives. If anything, they can be *worse* since they use their understanding of class struggle *against* workers. Jerry
[PEN-L:7019] Brecht Forum Events November 1996
The Brecht Forum and its projects, The New York Marxist School and The Institute for Popular Education 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 242-4201 (212) 741-4563 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) November 1996 Events **ELECTION NIGHT FOLLIES*** Lay the '96 Elections to Rest with Friends, Food, Drink, and Revelry!!! Featuring Performances by: * Emcee Judith Sloan (aka Muriel, the first independently poor candidate for voters with an over-abundance of ethics * Geoff Herzog * Eliot Katz * Tuli Kupferberg * Warren Lehrer * Professor Louie and Fast Eddie * Suheir * Polly Weiss *** and surprise guests Join us as we watch returns and usher in a new (or old) regime! Tuesday, November 5 from 7:30 pm on in a benefit for The Brecht Forum 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor (between Sixth and Seventh Avenues) $10-$20 (sliding scale); cash bar, fabulous free food, ribald revelry, and congenial camaraderie LECTURES SEMINARS Friday, November 1, 7-9:30 pm and Saturday, November 2, 9:30 am-4:30 pm Culture Matters: A Symposium Panelists: Rashidah Ismaili Abu Bakr, Aijaz Ahmad, Ellen Braune, Joseph Buttigieg, Stephen Duncombe, Yerach Gover, Ed Herman, Myriam Jimenez Roman, Colleen Roach Tuition: $15 Why does culture matter? what is the relationship between radical culture and radical political action? what cultural theories are most relevant for social change? which have led us into cul de sacs? From the national liberation struggles and solidarity movements of the 1960s and 1970s to the neoliberal "information age" of the 1980s and 1990s, increasing attention to cultural forms of domination and resistance has animated political theory and practice. On the threshhold of the twenty-first century, seemingly everything has been transformed into a commodity, religious fundamentalisms are flourishing and resistance to capitalism is ever more fragmented. Yet, these developments have provoked wide-ranging responses in the arena of cultural theory and practice. Starting from the contributions of Antonio Gramsci, this symposium is designed as an opening dialogue in a series of programs on culture and revolution. Panelists come from a variety of perspectives and countries, including scholars in media and literary studies as well as activists and practicioners "on the ground." * Thursday, November 7, 7:30 pm "Restructuring" and Contemporary Cuban Society a talk by Miguel Limia David co-sponsored with Science and Society Admission: $6 Miguel Limia David, a researcher in the Institute of Philosophy of the Cuban Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment in Havana, will explore some of the developmental tensions in Cuban society in the "new period." He will draw on his extensive studies on the impact of spontaneous and deliberate social processes in the course of the Cuban revolution, the dialectic of individual and social development, inter-generational dynamics, the role of popular participation in the politics and issues of civil, political, economic, social and cultural liberties. * Thursday, November 14, 7:30 pm Speaking Truth to Power a book party and discussion with Manning Marable Admission: $6 We will celebrate the publication of Manning Marable's new book, _Speaking Truth to Power_. Drawing from his own theoretical evolution in the left, Marable will discuss the problems as well as possiblities inherent in American socialism and the prospects for radical democratic politics. Manning Marable is Professor of History at Columbia University and National Co-Chair of the Committees of Correspondence * Friday, November 15, 7:30 pm A New Course for Labor? a panel with Robin D.G. Kelley (moderator), Dominic Chan, Hector Figueroa, Bill Henning, and Chris Woods Admission: $6 Until last year's changes in the AFL-CIO leadership, the dominant assumption of progressive activists, both in and out of the labor movement, was that it was difficult, if not counterproductive, to work within the AFL-CIO framework. In what ways has this assumption changed? What organizing and political strategies are now possible? What tensions remain? And, whatis the role of the broader left and progressive movement? Historian Robin D.G. Kelley, author of _Hammer and Hoe_ and _Race Rebels_, will moderate this roundtable discussion with Dominic Chan of Jobs With Justice, Hector Figueroa of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Bill Henning, Vice-President of Local 1180, Communications Workers of America (CWA), and Chris Woods, of the AFL-CIO Organizing Institute. *** Monday,
[PEN-L:7021] Culture Symposium, NYC 11/1-2
The Brecht Forum and its projects, The New York Marxist School and The Institute for Popular Education 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 242-4201 (212) 741-4563 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) The Brecht Forum presents a special symposium Culture Matters Friday, November 1, 7-9:30 pm and Saturday, November 2, 9:30 am-4:30 pm Featuring panelists: Rashidah Ismaili Abu Bakr, Aijaz Ahmad, Ellen Braune, Joseph Buttigieg, Stephen Duncombe, Yerach Gover, Ed Herman, Myriam Jimenez Roman, and Colleen Roach Tuition: $15 Why does culture matter? What is the relationship between radical culture and radical political action? What cultural theories are most relevant for social change? Which have led us into cul de sacs? Since the national liberation struggles and solidarity movements of the 1960s and 1970s to the neoliberal information age of the 1980s and 1990s, increasing attention to cultural forms of domination and resistance has animated political theory and practice. The first translations of Antonio Gramsci's _Prison Notebooks_ had a major impact, introducing a focus on "hegemony" and the idea that radical social transformation involved creating a counter-hegemonic culture throughout society. Pioneering work on "cultural imperialism" and "Three Worlds" theory brought about sweeping changes in radical thinking and activism. On the threshhold of the twenty-first century, seemingly everything has been transformed into a commodity, religious fundamentalisms are flourishing, and resistance to capitalism is ever more fragmented. Yet, these developments have provoked wide-ranging responses in the arena of cultural theory and practice. Starting from the contributions of Antonio Gramsci, this two-day symposium is designed as an opening dialogue in an ongoing series of programs to assess the impact of these rich advances in cultural theory and practice. Why does culture matter? What is the relationship between radical culture and radical political action? What cultural theories are most relevant for social change? Which have been dead-ends? What needs to be reworked, reappropriated, renewed? What challenges must be addressed if decisive progress into the twenty-first century is to be made? Panelists come from a variety of perspectives and a number of countries. They include scholars in media and literary studies within universities as well as activists and practicioners "on the ground." All will be asked to exchange their own experiences, thinking, and insights on future directions. The four sessions are plenaries, so that everyone can partcipate in the entire program and carry the central concern--the implications for today's movements and struggles--from one discussion to the next. Schedule Friday, November 1, 7 pm Panel I: Culture Matters? with Aijaz Ahmad, Ellen Braune, Joseph Buttigieg, Stephen Duncombe, Yerach Gover, Myriam Jimenez Roman, and Colleen Roach Saturday, November 2 10 am-12 noon Panel II: Culture and Social Change: Gramsci's Legacy with Aijaz Ahmad and Joseph Buttigieg 12 noon-12:30 pm lunch break 12:30 pm-2:30 pm Panel III: Culture, Identity, and Nationalism with Rashidah Ismaili Abu Bakr, Yerach Gover, and Myriam Jimenez Roman 2:30 pm- 4:30 pm Panel IV: Imperialism, Corporate Culture, and Resistance with Ellen Braune, Stephen Duncombe, Ed Herman, and Colleen Roach 4:30 pm-5:30 pm reception Panelists *Rashidah Ismaili Abu Bakr works in the Higher Education Opportunity Program at Pratt University. An academic as well as a cultural worker, she is a poet and has also written on such issues as popular culture and black psychology. *Aijaz Ahmad is the Senior Fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Studies, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, and author of _In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures_. *Ellen Braune is Communications Director for the National Labor Committee. Most recently, she has implemented the year-long Gap campaign and the Kathy Lee Gifford/ Wal-Mart expose. She also teaches media analysis and tools for media activism. *Joseph Buttigieg, a founder of the International Gramsci Society, is Professor of English and Fellow of the Center for European Studies at the University of Notre Dame. *Stephen Duncombe is a Professor of American Studies/ Media and Communications at the State University of New York and writes regularly for _The Baffler_. *Yerach Gover is Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Social Research, Graduate School, CUNY, and the author of _Zionism: The Limits of Moral Discourse in Israeli Hebrew Fiction_. *Ed Herman is Professor Emeritus of Finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and a regular columnist for Z magazine. *Myriam Jimenez Roman is Research Coordinator at the Schomberg Center for Research in Black Culture and writes on race and gender issues in the Caribbean and Latin America. *Colleen Roach is a writer and researcher on culture and communications issues. She has been teaching in
[PEN-L:7023] From Mort Winston, AIUSA Board Chair (fwd)
ON UNION-BUSTING ACCUSATIONS AT AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: EDITORIAL NOTE: Below is a message from the Amnesty International Board Chair responding to a note I forwarded about accusations of union busting at AI offices. I have no personal knowledge of exactly what happened in the union campaign, but I find the comments below as disturbing as the original accusations. In his note, Mr. Winston not only defends his own actions but defends anti-union legislation that strips many workers of their right to organize--a disturbing position for any leader of a human rights organization. For people's information, the exclusion of a broad range of supervisory employees from the right to organize in unions dates from the anti-union 1947 Taft-Hartley Law which which in large measure crippled the US labor movement in this country. It is Orwellian for Mr. Winston to argue that "the law is written as it is to protect the interests of non- supervisory employees." The exclusion of supervisory employees and the whole legal delays in employers using such exclusions to delay votes and intimidate employees are key facets of why unionization has become so hard in this county. Again, it is an abomination for a leader of a human rights organization to justify such anti-union laws that strip large number of employees of rights. One final note; while I have no personal knowledge of this case, I personally worked at a fundraising firm back in 1989-90 hired by AI (among other groups) to do fundraising. WHen we sought to organize a union, similar union-busting attacks using intimidation of supervisors was used to stop the union drive. I am saddened that a group I have supported in the past, like AI would defend right-wing anti-union laws in this country. --Nathan Newman, moderator p.s. If you have a response for AI, please send all mail to Rena Margulis who is fielding e-mail for the organization. Send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 01:08:33-0800 From: Rena Margulis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nathan Newman[EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy English [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: From Mort Winston, AIUSA Board Chair Dear Mr. Newman and Mr. English-- Your e-mail, which forwarded Nate Stone's false and damaging allegations about Amnesty International USA, has in turn been forwarded to me. In the interest of fairness, I most strongly urge you to forward the following message to all those correspondents to whom you forwarded Mr. Stone's message. I further ask that if any of them forwarded Mr. Stone's earlier message, that the following continue to be forwarded to the final recipients. Amnesty International, winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize for Peace for its human rights work, supports the right of workers to unionize under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. AIUSA has been the victim of a monstrous lie, and I appreciate your willingness to put an end to it. Thank you, Rena Margulis AIUSA Deputy Secretary - DATE:Sunday, October 27, 1996 FROM:Mort Winston Chair, AIUSA Board of Directors TO: Mr. Nathaniel A. Stone message of October 25, 1995 RE: AIUSA Labor Relations Dear Mr. Stone, I was greatly disturbed to read the memo you sent to thirty-eight people on 25 October 1996 about unionization at AIUSA. That memo contains very serious errors in fact and implication. I don't know who your source of information was, and I don't want to know. But whoever it was has misled you. You, in turn, by distributing unsubstantiated allegations, have done your correspondents, and potentially AIUSA, a very grave disservice. As someone who does in fact know what happened, allow me to set the record straight. In July 1996 several members of AIUSA's staff calling themselves "The AIUSA Organizing Committee" (not 90 as stated in your letter) circulated a memo in which they asked their fellow members of the staff to consider affiliating with Local 1180 of the Communication Workers of America (CWA). Over the next several weeks, members of AIUSA's staff were asked to sign cards indicating whether or not they wished to hold a union certification election under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in order to determine whether or not there would be an election to decide whether CWA Local 1180 would become the collective bargaining agent for AIUSA's employees. On 21 August 1996 AIUSA's senior management was notified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that a sufficient number of employees (at least 30%) had returned cards indicating that they did wish a certification election for CWA 1180 to be held. The next step in the process would involve a National Labor Relations Board hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit. AIUSA did engage the services of a well-respected lawyer, Kay Hodge, who specializes in labor
