BAHA KUBAN wrote:
>Thoughts on the character of Mass Production;
>This discussion of course is one about the character of
>technological systems themselves. Are they neutral, value free or
>socially constructed.
>I think enough evidence now points to technologies as social control
>mechanism as well. Among many possible technical paths to the
>solution of production questions some are preferred over others due
>essentially to the power game.
>Mass production is a particularly poignant example of this due to
>its embodiment of Taylorist management and deskilling.
>To expect a participatory outcome from mass production would be
>impossible due to its development as an elite control technology.
>A good example of the impossiblity to democratically control mass
>production was the beginnings factory soviets in the opening phases
>of the bolshevik revolution. Mass production technologies
>transferred or rather copied from the west allowed only hierarchical
>control giving
>rise to the consolidation of the management elite.
>That participative and democratic control of technology is
>necessary, there is no doubt. But the design of production
>technologies is where the real social control has to come in, all
>the way to the initail research&development phase. How present
>capitalist technologies can be
>reconfigured for a fairer workplace and production process is the
>baffling question!!?
I think this have some relevance to our present struggle about the
development of new energies.
The establishment, and the majority in the Parliament, here in Norway
wants to build gaspowerplants, but the new governement and the
majority of the population want to go for more sustainable
energy resources.
Today about 55% of the powerplants are ownes by the municipalities
and the counties, more than 30% by the governement and 10-15% by
private corporations. And many places the locals have considerable
control of their source of electricity. I would say it is the case
here where I live. We are about 2.500 persons living in this small
municipality. We have some lakes in our mountains, and we have built
some tunnels from the lakes to the sealevel, and at the bottom of the
tunnel we have the generators that produce electricity, and we
produce a lot more electricity than we need ourselves. The debts are
paid, and our electricity is very inexpencive. And it is owned by the
municipalities and the locals.
Some time ago the guvernement introduced "the free market" system for
electricity. We do not care very much about that. We built this
powerplant to get the electricity we need, not to earn money. And we
still sell electricity to ourselves to a very low price, but all the
electricity sold out to outsiders is now being sold to a prices more
than the double of what we ourselves pay. We did not want this, but
the governement was doing everything to force the market upon us.
And I guess this is the situation in many communities.
But back to the issue:
Sustainable energy resources can be controlled and owned locally
because they are often widespread and not concentrating a large
production of electricity like a nuclear powerplant is. And to some
extent this applies to a gaspowerplant too. It will concentrate the
production of electricity because it needs pipelines for gas that
today do not exist in Norway, and which are expencive to build. But
we already have a solid grid for distribution of electricity all over
the country. Therefore the gaspowerplants will be built a few places
and owned by some corporations, and the local and democratic control
and ownership of the energy supply of the country will be weakened.
I think this is a very important reason to the quite strong
resistance against the gaspowerplants.
But I see that in a small municipality like ours we do not have to
care about the former governement's insistence on profitability of
the powerplants, because we, the locals, were more concerned about
having a cheap and reliable source of electricity. This is not the
case in the larger towns. Although they too own their energy
resources they are trying to make as much money as possible. The
reason is that in a large utility the leadership is a bureaucracy
running things according to other rules than the will of the common
man, even if it is the common man through the municipality who owns
the utility. But in a small municipality with a rather small utility
the will of the common man is often more important than governement
declarations.
Well, one good thing about this "free market" is that
our power company is today making a lot of money, and we can soon
begin to build windmills etc. And one important reason is that we
want to go on controlling and owning as much as possible of the
things that surround us and that we depend upon.
The size of organisations, factories etc are important for how easy
it is to develop democracy, because a small size makes it more easy
to overlook what is going on. And if people do not know what is going
on, then democracy and participation is a fake.
Tor Forde
