On 10/05/2006, at 6:12 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, Marx may have envisioned more a bottom-up mutual-interest
based society. Collective ownership, as in social democracies, is a
*growing* phenomenon. Just look at the rise of collective owneship of
football clubs, for example. From only a couple 10 years ago in the
UK to over a hundred mutual trusts.
Our experience in this is much longer.
I doubt it, as I shall now explain: From the formation of the
Football League in the 1880s, almost all football clubs used to be
"members' clubs". run by and for the members; they were gradually
turned into limited companies (and later, publicly listed companies),
until the early 90s when there was only, I think, one members' club
left (Wycombe Wanderers). During the 90s, the Supporters Trust
initiative was born, to return clubs to ownership by the only people
that actually care about the long term interest of a club.
Ironically, just a couple of years ago, thanks to vote stacking by
the chairman of Wycombe, it's no longer a members club and is in sole
ownership of a consortium of 3 or so investors. So we've seen it
swing both ways, and the balance seems to be creeping back. In the
end, there'll be a mixture, with most smaller clubs returning to a
mutual basis.
The Green Bay Packers had wide
community backing from 1922 when
<snip nifty tale>
That sounds a lot like your football teams Charlie.
Yep. It's a world-wide phenomenon.
In addition, there were much more significant economic
organizations that
date back to the early 20th century in the US. Rural co-ops have
existed
here for about 100 years....and are now big businesses....and they
are still
technically co-ops....owned by the producers.
They're world-wide too, as are building societies, credit unions.
Marxist government is an oxymoron. By its very definition, Marxism
requires the emergent behaviour of a networked population, not the
imposition of a planned economy through a police state.
That is the long term end state, yes. The dictatorship of the
proletariat
was a needed intermediate step. Individual rights are meaningless
in a
Marxist context because everything is economic.
Well, in one sense. I think that that's what's become clear. Not the
failure of Marx's ideas themselves, but the implementation (similarly
to blaming Darwin for eugenics, in a way).
The key to me is that Marx wasn't interested in individuals, only
classes.
Thus, individual freedoms were considered a non-issue.
Sure.
Emergent behavior of networking is a modern concept....I'd argue
that the
historical dielectic is the best tool to understand
Marxism....because it is
the tool of Marxism.
Likewise, genetics is a modern concept, but it's key to understanding
Darwin. I think we're learning ways now in which Marx's ideas *could*
flourish and succeed. He had some great insight for his day (and
plenty of terrible ones too), but we're only now starting to develop
the tools to really be able to implement some of the good ones. And
we're probably nowhere near socially mature enough yet.
And, the real split within Marxists was the Stalin-Trostky split.
Lenin
was considered to be a good Marxist writer/leader....Few Marxists
who I
talked with during the '60s and '70s took after Lenin's
implementation of
the dictatorship of the proletariat.
That's true.
What I think we're seeing is that private ownership of public
resources isn't working - it's just as inefficient as the
nationalised behemoths or the planned economies. Plus democracy is
failing in the West - countries without compulsory voting have had
decreasing and poorly representative turnouts, and partisanship is
putting political interests before the interests of the majority.
I'd like to see new models of public ownership where public services
aren't nationalised in the old sense of "run by the government". but
run as co-ops in which every voting adult has a share, and so the
customers have the ability to directly call account of failing boards
of directors. It's worked with several companies (and to return to
football, just look at Barcelona!). I really fail to see why
profiteering companies should provide our water and electricity and
health services. Run a nationally owned company like a private
company, and we're all better off.
But we also need to leave room for entrepreneurs and private
companies who wish to compete in the market, because that's where
innovation lies.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
